Why people hate LOTD [Archive]

DjfunkmasterG

04-Mar-2006, 12:33 PM

Since we have a post about liking LAND, might as well have the other side of the spectrum as well.

It has been almost a year since I caught the theatrical run of LAND, and nearly 6 months since I purchsed the DVD. Some have said it gets better with every viewing, while no matter how many times I watch it and try to see something better in the film, I can't.

For many of us, LOTD was to be the master's finest entry, for those of us that read the script I think expected more than what we got. LAND has some decent things going for it, but it has more failures than anything. Over the top performaces from zombies, as well as living characters, poor cinematography, and a short running time just to name a few.

Land's shining moments weren't in the gore, but showing the people of the city... Standing around, eeking by on their existence. Although the film was his biggest budget to date, the cinematography made the film feel so small, yet it was to be so epic. Another shining moment was the make-up FX by KNB. except for Big Daddy every other zombie was perfect.

Although the script I read and the final product were slightly different, the script to screen translation was mediocre at best, and this is why I think most DEAD fans, find this to be the worst of the series. Land could have been the greatest zombie film ever, but failed to deliver what a lot of people were looking for... The classic Romero development of characters... instead we have cookie cuuter versions who phone in most of their performances.

it is really a shame :mad:

Phildogger

04-Mar-2006, 02:03 PM

Yeah, that about sums it up for me too.

MinionZombie

04-Mar-2006, 05:25 PM

Adrenochrome

04-Mar-2006, 11:31 PM

As a representative of the "love camp", fupishcu to you, kind sir! lol :D:D

(any excuse to use "fupishcu" you know...everyone's entitled to their opinion, that's what's great about the western world!) :cool:

"Excuse me, waiter,......I have a fupishcu in my soup"....

.....Ya know, I'm going to a (jazz) brunch tomorrow....I think I'll use this word of yours.:D

MinionZombie

05-Mar-2006, 11:54 AM

Actually it's (if I'm not mistaken), idsaluteyoubub's creation - and a damned fine creation at that. :cool:

livingdeadboy

05-Mar-2006, 12:46 PM

I have pretty much the same beefs with Land of the dead as you do Dj, Hell I didn't even think some of the zombies were up to snuff make-up wise.

Rottedfreak

05-Mar-2006, 05:57 PM

Folk who hate Land for the intelligent zombies really haven't seen Night Dawn or Day.

MinionZombie

05-Mar-2006, 08:08 PM

I know what you're saying, because through Night they get to the intelligence of a baby playing, then in Dawn it's like small children remembering things and reacting to their surroundings. Day features the same child a couple of years older and in Land you've got the rebellious teenager - and both teenagers and zombies grunt instead of talk! :D

Hell, I still grunt half the time instead of talking and I haven't been a teenager for a good few years now, guess old habits die hard.

tju1973

06-Mar-2006, 01:40 AM

Out of all of them, I personally rate the 4 in this order..

Day,Dawn,Night, and finally Land..

ok, now throw what you must at me..

these are only my opinions!

:skull:

DjfunkmasterG

06-Mar-2006, 01:40 AM

Folk who hate Land for the intelligent zombies really haven't seen Night Dawn or Day.

I am 35 years old, and I have seen them all and I am a huge fan of the first 3. I am not going to call something roses when I see a pile a crap.

I am not going to jump on the bandwagon just because it is George Romero. If the man can't take criticism of his work then he shouldn't be in films. Cereval's film DEADSCAPES was 23 minutes and 50 times more entertaining than LOTD.

I have no problem with Intelligent zombies, when the acting is done right. Anyone who thinks he pulled off the intelligent zombies perfectly is either blind as a bat, or smoking some really good herb and needs to hook me up with their dealer.

DrSiN

06-Mar-2006, 05:07 AM

for those of us that read the script I think expected more than what we got.

Of course we did. Our version had perfect acting and perfect setup. LOTD could have been a great movie. In the end it was an ok movie. I think LOTD had 2 flaws.

First, Big Daddy was wrong. Smart zombies are fine. In fact, smart zombies can be a pretty horrific. However smart zombies who are angry and cry just plain suck. Had Big Daddy been portrayed with the same emotion scale of Bub (or better yet, slightly dialed back) it would have been a whole different movie. Now, GAR wanted to transition to being a story where the zombie is the protagonist. Well that doesn't really work. Here's my take on zombies. They can either be creepy (NOTD/DAWN/NIGHT90) or Intense (DAWN2K4). What they can't be is the protagonist. Once you try and make the viewer feel for the zombie with anymore more than Pity, they will never be creppy and can never be intense.

The second flaw was the living characters. They were as uninteresting as they were wooden on the screen. Much of that was the script but the performances didn't help. The ONLY on screen chemistry was between Slack and Charlie of all people. Everyone else was a wash.

But I have to say, I was never personally offended that GAR didn't deliver a perfect movie. And I not only saw it twice, but I pre-order the DVD.

MinionZombie

06-Mar-2006, 10:23 AM

DjfunkmasterG

06-Mar-2006, 02:03 PM

Of course we did. Our version had perfect acting and perfect setup. LOTD could have been a great movie. In the end it was an ok movie. I think LOTD had 2 flaws.

First, Big Daddy was wrong. Smart zombies are fine. In fact, smart zombies can be a pretty horrific. However smart zombies who are angry and cry just plain suck. Had Big Daddy been portrayed with the same emotion scale of Bub (or better yet, slightly dialed back) it would have been a whole different movie. Now, GAR wanted to transition to being a story where the zombie is the protagonist. Well that doesn't really work. Here's my take on zombies. They can either be creepy (NOTD/DAWN/NIGHT90) or Intense (DAWN2K4). What they can't be is the protagonist. Once you try and make the viewer feel for the zombie with anymore more than Pity, they will never be creppy and can never be intense.

The second flaw was the living characters. They were as uninteresting as they were wooden on the screen. Much of that was the script but the performances didn't help. The ONLY on screen chemistry was between Slack and Charlie of all people. Everyone else was a wash.

But I have to say, I was never personally offended that GAR didn't deliver a perfect movie. And I not only saw it twice, but I pre-order the DVD.

Dr. Sin...

You are so right on the Big Daddy/Protagonist Zombie issue. Romero made it now so the zombies aren't scary anymore. I never sat in the theater and felt like I was frightened or horrified. LAND just didnot have that creepy edge that DAY or NIGHT 90 had. The DAWN remake was more frightening.

My biggest complaint from the get go was Big Daddy's incessant crying and howling. Had he been, like you suggested, a scaled back version of BUB, I would have found it more believeable.

You were spot on with that assessment.

p2501

06-Mar-2006, 04:09 PM

i disliked it for one, because i was expecting too much from Romero. and that tainted my view of the film.

beyond that, as it was pointed out the scope was entirely too small. further te idea of a "ruling" class seemed sort of silly, granted to worked with the context of Romeros' metaphor. but as a plot point it was too much of a shark to jump. The plot was also lacking, honestly every entry in the" body snatchers " series far more merits film adaptation that both dead reckonings' orignal script, and the final product.

other reasons:

- the reckoning was really not that impressive, i was expecting something alot more "damnation alley" than what we got.

- not enough zombie masses. the one large group was what maybe 200-300 zombies. an elevated fire team would have dropped them with minutes.

- randomly generated plot point characters.

- the priest zombie.

and a few more, that i'm too bored to list.

all and all it is a good movie, i just think alot of us over expected what we were going to get from it. also alot of us have been spoiled by the excellent level of story telling available on this site.

deadpunk

07-Mar-2006, 06:13 AM

I keep reading through this thread how bad the plot was..and not trying to instigate anything, but I was surprised to find the movie had a plot. If I had a criticism of any of the other GAR Zombie movies, it was that they DID NOT. I mean, beyond trying to survive...can anyone tell me the plot of any of the others? Night was pure survival. Dawn was twenty minutes of survival and two hours of watching them set up house. Day was maybe the closest with it's view of people breaking down upon each other after being enclosed together for an extended period..yet, that was fairly thin too.

Overall, I liked Land the best. Yes, the plot was cookie cutter. But, it was THERE. It had back stories and motivations for the characters.

As for the over-expectation...well, after that long, GAR could have made the perfect finale and most of us would have been left feeling cheated. We've all spent so long wondering and writing/reading what others thought it should have been. The film was doomed to critcisms before it started.

MinionZombie

07-Mar-2006, 11:39 AM

As for the original trilogy and the film plots - they're more centered around social commentary, which directly connects with the viewer, and besides - I think the plots are more subtle. Night covers one night, so you can't go very far. Dawn has a simple plot, but it is there, it's about seeing these characters in their world and slowly crumbling - plus it's the biggest one for social commentary.

Day has a bigger arc than the previous two and indeed Land has the most of "in movie plot". Really, the first three focus on "story" - which means not only what you see IN the movie itself, but all the stuff you didn't see which came before it (that the characters on screen have been through).

Land took a step closer to 'normal' movies in that there was a greater focus on "plot", which means specifically what you see on screen in those 90 minutes. There is a surrounding "story" of course, but GAR moved along the slider towards "plot" a bit more with the fourth flick.

One of the things I really like about the saga is that you fill in a lot of the details yourself, you're not just told "this is how it is", there's plenty of discussion surrounding the movies - hell, here we are as a community many years old talking about these films. You don't find that sort of thing with say, Bad Boys 2 - a flick which focusses totally on "plot" rather than any smidgen of "story".

Yep, the film degree comes in handy these days :D

Adrenochrome

07-Mar-2006, 01:24 PM

As for the over-expectation...well, after that long, GAR could have made the perfect finale and most of us would have been left feeling cheated. We've all spent so long wondering and writing/reading what others thought it should have been. The film was doomed to critcisms before it started.

BINGO!!!
nicely put.

Humor Tumor

07-Mar-2006, 04:11 PM

Well, according to GAR himself you're "a real troll" because you like Day the most, lol. Those most into Dawn are the groovy fun-lovers and those into Night are the straight-lined "original is best" folk.

So I wonder what those who most like Land would be called by GAR...

I'm a troll as well, I admitted it to Lori Cardille over e-mail.

As for Land, I think it was the weakest entry and could have been great. Could have. As it is now it's a decent film, not spectacular, but it's decent overall.

As for those who like Land more, I think they would be called mainstreamers as this installation didn't feel exactly Romero like, it felt like many of the other zombie films coming out.

MinionZombie

07-Mar-2006, 04:41 PM

Visually yes (non-GAR cinematography and editing + better equipment), script-wise though it felt just like good old GAR.

Apocryphism

07-Mar-2006, 06:11 PM

As has been said plenty already in this thread alone, most folks disliked Land beacause they expected more than they feel they recieved.

I do have a comment about characterization, however. I don't think it can be denied that the scope and scale of Land is much broader than any of the previous films. In a film that only lasts an hour and a half, has a more swiftly-moving plot, and has more flesh and blood characters than the previous films, you can't expect characterization to be on the same level. Well... technically, you can, but to do so is only a set-up for some amount of disappointment.

Given screen time and what had to be accomplished, I think Romero did a decent job with the characters. I agree that more characterization would have been absolutely golden, but a lot of other things would have been forsaken within the same timeframe.

Personally, my sole disappointment in the film is running time. This film would have shined brighter in every way with a precious extra thirty minutes.

Even so, I do thoroughly enjoy the film as it is.

DjfunkmasterG

08-Mar-2006, 01:35 PM

Apocryphism

08-Mar-2006, 05:59 PM

I simply feel that thirty extra minutes would have given George a good deal more elbow room to tune a few things. It would have allowed him to explore things he wasn't able to do so more thoroughly in an hour and a half.

I wouldn't necessarily want thirty more minutes of plot or an extension of the action... just thirty intercut minutes of dog shots, thoughtful bits, small characterization cues, and such like. Just a little more room to work.

Some people complain that films like Dawn have too much of this (and are essentially "too long" or "too slow"). My feelings are quite the opposite.

DjfunkmasterG

08-Mar-2006, 06:14 PM

I think DAWn 78 is perfect for that reason. Land is too action driven (Not as much as the DAWN remake) but driven just the same. That is probably why there is no 'Dog Shots'

MinionZombie

08-Mar-2006, 08:10 PM

Indeed, Dawn 78 is perfect - the fact it ponders upon it's situation and yet also doesn't FEEL it's length. Some flicks DRAAAAAAAAG so much (*cough* Night Watch *cough*). When I first saw Dawn I sat down, was utterly blown away in five minutes and didn't budge a centimeter until it was over 2 hours and 20 minutes later - and I was shocked it had been that long. It just flows...

RaVeN

08-Mar-2006, 10:56 PM

I didn't hate Land.

I just didn't love it either.

It was alright for what it was. A late night horror movie at the local cinema. Did it feel to me like a Romero movie ? No. Does it deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as Night or Dawn ? Hell no. It had its moments but these were for the most part too little too late. Fiddlers Green was ridiculous and Dead Reckoning didn't cut it for me much either. The soldiers for the most part also came straight out of the inflatable dartboard school of warfare.
I own the movie on DVD. I've watched it a few times. That's about as much as I think of it.

ZombieFood

09-Mar-2006, 06:51 AM

Of course we did. Our version had perfect acting and perfect setup. LOTD could have been a great movie. In the end it was an ok movie. I think LOTD had 2 flaws.

First, Big Daddy was wrong. Smart zombies are fine. In fact, smart zombies can be a pretty horrific. However smart zombies who are angry and cry just plain suck. Had Big Daddy been portrayed with the same emotion scale of Bub (or better yet, slightly dialed back) it would have been a whole different movie. Now, GAR wanted to transition to being a story where the zombie is the protagonist. Well that doesn't really work. Here's my take on zombies. They can either be creepy (NOTD/DAWN/NIGHT90) or Intense (DAWN2K4). What they can't be is the protagonist. Once you try and make the viewer feel for the zombie with anymore more than Pity, they will never be creppy and can never be intense.

The second flaw was the living characters. They were as uninteresting as they were wooden on the screen. Much of that was the script but the performances didn't help. The ONLY on screen chemistry was between Slack and Charlie of all people. Everyone else was a wash.

But I have to say, I was never personally offended that GAR didn't deliver a perfect movie. And I not only saw it twice, but I pre-order the DVD.
Bingo! We have a winner!

Now I liked LOTD. Not my favorite, but it had the one criteria that is necessary for me to like zombie movies: Zombies.

Admittedly, it doesn't take much to reach my expectations in this genre.

That said, when the viewer wants the zombies to really stick it to those miserable scummy living humans, well, something has gone very wrong....

I remember watching it in the theater and thinking at the end when Big Daddy and the zombies head off that I hoped they found somewhere nice and peaceful to settle down.

My next thought was "WTF is with that....I'm cheering on the zombies!!"

But I still liked it!

MinionZombie

09-Mar-2006, 07:51 AM

DjfunkmasterG

09-Mar-2006, 12:20 PM

But that's the point - you're cheering on the zombies - that's what GAR has been going for over the trilogy, you start out rooting for the humans (of course) and then slowly turn towards the zombies as they become more human like and the actual humans get more and more screwed up.

I have to no problem with that either. I think it is just the level of humanity the zombies showed that I had a problem with. Was it me or did Big Daddy seem way more intelligent than the rest of the flock. Ya know when ya think about it there is a really kinda funny way about Big Daddy.

In the real world he was just a Gas Station Owner/Attendant, then he dies comes back, now he is the smartest one in the litter. Is GAR trying to tell us that a Gas station attendant will lead us to our salvation. I just found some really funny irony in the fact a Petroleum Dispensing Engineer ended up being a leader. (then again look at the white house)

Adrenochrome

09-Mar-2006, 01:12 PM

I just found some really funny irony in the fact a Petroleum Dispensing Engineer ended up being a leader. (then again look at the white house)
LOL :D :D :D Good one!

ZombieFood

09-Mar-2006, 02:01 PM

DjfunkmasterG

09-Mar-2006, 02:24 PM

Financially it did ok $50,000,000 world wide.

However, as a part of the saga it was an utter failure to many fans.

Adrenochrome

09-Mar-2006, 04:39 PM

I'm going to watch it again right now!

Humor Tumor

09-Mar-2006, 05:58 PM

I'm watching Day, then Land

MinionZombie

09-Mar-2006, 06:07 PM

jdog

09-Mar-2006, 07:17 PM

I too liked how the "small fish" in life became the "big fish" in zombie-dom.

But that's the whole point in Big Daddy - he's smarter than the average zombie, like how Bub was - but multiplied by a few - and Big Daddy teaches (like a monkey would teach, through action) the other zombies and leads them. He shows them they shouldn't be afraid of the water, he starts to show them how to master a weapon - well, master it in terms of how a toddler would 'master' an M16, lol.

Rock on Big Daddy!
i agree 'BIG DADDY" was altot smarter then the rest of the zombies. clarks acting was a bit weak,but the concept of a smart zombie is something i enjoyed.
myself i love LAND because its is a new GAR movie and the firt one i got to see on opening night.

ZombieFood

09-Mar-2006, 08:08 PM

Financially it did ok $50,000,000 world wide.

However, as a part of the saga it was an utter failure to many fans.
Was it the best in GAR's series? Absolutely not!

But it was a fine entertaining movie all the same. And that is the measure I use to gauge how successful a film is: Did it entertain?

Case in point: Lord of the Rings. There are people that love the movies, there are people that hate the movies. What I find is that the people that hate them in general did not like the adaptation that was made from book to screen. Those people wouldn't have been satisfied regardless of how close it came to the original. If it wasn't spot on, then there would be no quarter.

And to a certain extent, that's fine as long as they acknowledge this fact while they are criticising it.

There is plenty I wish GAR would have done with LotD. I have plenty of ideas on how he could have changed it to make it a better film. Oddly enough though, he never called to ask me.

I could criticize it for would it could have been, but I'd rather just enjoy it for what it is.

DjfunkmasterG

09-Mar-2006, 08:09 PM

clarks acting was a bit weakQUOTE]

weak?

more like... DOWN RIGHT FRIGGING HORRIBLE.

That is the role GAR should have saved for Howard Sherman

[QUOTE=ZombieFood]Was it the best in GAR's series? Absolutely not!

But it was a fine entertaining movie all the same. And that is the measure I use to gauge how successful a film is: Did it entertain?

Case in point: Lord of the Rings. There are people that love the movies, there are people that hate the movies. What I find is that the people that hate them in general did not like the adaptation that was made from book to screen. Those people wouldn't have been satisfied regardless of how close it came to the original. If it wasn't spot on, then there would be no quarter.

And to a certain extent, that's fine as long as they acknowledge this fact while they are criticising it.

There is plenty I wish GAR would have done with LotD. I have plenty of ideas on how he could have changed it to make it a better film. Oddly enough though, he never called to ask me.

I could criticize it for would it could have been, but I'd rather just enjoy it for what it is.

I do agree with you 100% that people will hate something no matter what, but this isn't really one of those cases like LOTR. This was just poorly executed from the get go. I blame many people with this issue. (Producers, Universal, and GAR himself.)

Scousezombie

09-Mar-2006, 09:08 PM

I hated Land because I felt insulted by the script.

I have issues with the idea of 'smart' zombies, which to me undermine the very thing that makes zombies frightening in the first place (their lack of humanity and loss of 'self') but hey, that's a matter of personal taste.

However, I can't forgive a script that expects me to believe that, in a world overrun by walking corpses in which humanity survives in heavily defended enclaves and scavenges for supplies, US dollars have any value whatsoever. The idea that Cholo would threaten the Green simply for worthless scraps of paper which cant be spent anywhere is ludicrous.

It's as if someone bolted on a terrorist/ransom plot onto a zombie film without stopping to think about the world in which it's set. It would have made more sense for Cholo to demand tins of spam, which would at least have *some* barter value (and they have their own key!)

Another thing which made no sense to me was the existence of the 'suits' inside the Green. Just what do these people *do*? They seemed for all the world to serve no purpose other than to be eaten later; if they have some function in the new world, I'd have been fascinated to have learned what it was! There cant be a big demand for stockbrokers, bankers and lawyers in a walled city with no economy to speak of (except for the low level trade for basic necessities) which is completely cut off from the rest of the world.

ZombieFood

09-Mar-2006, 09:08 PM

One thing I have noticed is that when things become "mainstream", they lose character.

Computer games are like this. My first PC was a Commodore 64. The graphics, while good at the time, were horrible by today's standards. However, what they lacked in the visual aspect they more than made up for with content and substance.

I think the same analogy holds true with many things.

I think this analogy would apply to the difference between NotLD and LotD.

While I still maintain that LotD was enjoyable (at least in a visual sense), I would also say it lacked the character and substance that GAR's previous "less polished" films had.

But to me, that doesn't mean it was a failure.

DjfunkmasterG

10-Mar-2006, 10:28 AM

It would have made more sense for Cholo to demand tins of spam, which would at least have *some* barter value (and they have their own key!)

:evil: :D :D :D

Now that is fricking funny.

One thing I have noticed is that when things become "mainstream", they lose character.

Computer games are like this. My first PC was a Commodore 64. The graphics, while good at the time, were horrible by today's standards. However, what they lacked in the visual aspect they more than made up for with content and substance.

I think the same analogy holds true with many things.

I think this analogy would apply to the difference between NotLD and LotD.

While I still maintain that LotD was enjoyable (at least in a visual sense), I would also say it lacked the character and substance that GAR's previous "less polished" films had.

But to me, that doesn't mean it was a failure.

This is why I feel it is a failure. The less polished stuff seemed more real, more frightening. LAND, didn't have any of that. it felt like he spent $15,000,000 just because he could. George was more effective when he is below the radar.

MinionZombie

10-Mar-2006, 11:49 AM

Oh FFS...not this bloody "money" complaint again. At least three times on the old forums this has been discussed before and everytime we came to the conclusion that it was justified and that money was necessary.

Land is the sort of movie that actually gets you to think about things more, to delve into the intricacies yourself, rather than just flat out telling you like you have to tell a toddler not to sh*t itself.

The point is they've created a new world, a new - mini - society WITH an economy, people's functions are based on trade and industry. Vices are sold in exchange for money, which is in turn exchanged for other vices or supplies - only some people go out raiding, it's not like any old bugger can just step out and pick up a pack of smokes - or even want to, in a zombie infested world. It's like in the real world - not everybody can produce beer, or fags, or grow vegetables or provide bread etc.

I really don't understand why the whole mini-economy is SO HARD to understand, like I said, it's been discussed endlessly on the old Dead Discussion forum and each time the money was justified. I'm not flaming you and I'm not looking for a fight - I'm just stating the facts as I know them and giving a brief explanation of why money in Land = perfectly reasonable.

bassman

10-Mar-2006, 03:15 PM

I'm with you on that one, Minion. Makes perfect sense to me...

MinionZombie

10-Mar-2006, 07:03 PM

*high five* for perfect sense :cool:

jdog

11-Mar-2006, 01:32 AM

i like the idea of a super zombie but clarks acting was a little over the top.
but i love the way it showed the zombies evolving as the movie played out
the ending was a little to hollywood for me .

Arcades057

11-Mar-2006, 07:33 AM

OK my complaints with this movie...

1) The soldiers. It's been 3 years. You know that all you have to do is shoot them in the head. So you spray a whole magazine at the body and extremities of a trapped zombie to kill it. Then you act like you're cool. I guess the Green's residents have the Springfield Armory running again. Also they seem to have no concept of safe points or secondary defensive positions. They sit in a tower where they are safe and then quickly drop into the advancing arms of zombies to be eaten while screaming "no!" With soldiers like that it's no wonder we lost the world to cadavers.

2) Riley. I just didn't like him. He reminded me of John Kerry for some reason, whom I dislike intensly. This guy is such a goody-two-shoes, you gotta wonder how this past and present pacifist survived the rising of the dead. I wonder how many weeks it took him until he could bear to touch a gun without shivering. He's such a good guy, looking out for the little people, but he's ready to run off to Canada and forget about the rest of them real quick, no?

3) Slack. Didn't like her either. At first I thought she was supposed to be "mentally challenged," then some helpful soul told me she was just Italian, which explained the accent. It did not explain the ****e acting. That little brat from Sopranos is Italian and she's a better actor. She does have one funny part where she shoots off Charlie's ear. I laughed at that. But this is a zombie movie. I did not laugh during Dawn '78, either Night, or Day of the Dead. You aren't supposed to laugh at a movie like this. But that's what Hollywood's become these days. The very fact that there are laugh-out-loud parts in this movie is proof enough that GAR HAS gone Hollywood.

4) Here's your plot: Guy gets fed up, guy wants out. Other guy gets fed up, other guy wants revenge. Guys get together. One gets out, one dies. It's a plot about escape. Someone said this is the only movie that had a plot, seeing as Night was about hiding, Dawn was about setting up house, and Day was about watching the survivors unravel. Land was about escape, and that's it. There is only one plot to this movie and that is escape. Everything else is only incidental to that.

5) Big Daddy. I wish I could call him what I really thought of him, but that's offensive to some. Let's just say I cringe whenever he enters the screen. If Land had been kick-arse in every other way, Bd would have still brought down it's kick-arse rating a point for me. Sure, Bub was smart too, but he did not emote at me! What's with the "NNOOOOO!" he does when his buddy gets his body shot off? Or the "AH-HA!" when he sees the gas coming from the hose? Smart zombies, OK, I can see that. Anyone who's read my remake in the fiction section (Valley of the Dead) will see my idea of smart zombies. Why is the smartest zombie a friggin gas station jockey, a Petroleum Dispensing Engineer, as DJ said? If BD had been a teacher, or a guy wearing scrubs, or even some white dude with frizzy hair and a pocket protector, I'd get it. But why is it a guy who in life probably went home to an efficiency and drank Colt .45 while watching his rabbit-ear-equipped TV?

6) Kaufman. A stab at the current White House, like a lot of other movies that come out these days. *yawn* Again, he provided a few laughs. Again, that detracted from the movie. This guy was like a maniacal "Bruce Campbell" from Dawn '04. "Bruce" ruined Dawn, Kaufman only helped to ruin Land.

7) The way all of the civilians died to the living dead in the end. Here's a newsflash: Every time something hits that electrified barrier the energy output increases. Send enough people or objects against that barrier and it will short out. Not to mention if you knock the little knuckle-size transformers off the fence it'll turn off. Or if you turn around and grab those retaining barriers you can start knocking the crap out of the living dead. Or form holes in your line, grab zombies and start hurling THEM into the fences. Wait, instead just cringe and wait for the zombies to start eating you. Then scream and scream. Much better idea. No idea whatsoever how these fools survived the rising of the dead. (political agenda ON) Here's the ultimate failing of GAR's vision. He tries to show how the capitalist system fails. The higher-ups beat upon the lower-downs and profit from their sweat. But here at the end he proves that socialism does not work either. Socialism puts everyone at the service of the state; the people rely upon the state for protection. But the State cannot help the survivors and they are deserted and annihilated. (political agenda OFF)

8) The "ending." What ending, you say? Well you're right. I'm kind of tired and I forgot that there IS no ending. Just a bunch of fireworks as Wussy McPusserson rides into the sunrise. Yay.

OK, that's what I didn't like. I gotta say now that I've seen this movie with three girlfriends, my mother, and scattered friends. Every one of them say it's their favorite zombie movie I've forced them to watch. Either they'e all crazy, stupid, or have no concentration to get into Dawn 78, or a lot of us are missing something. Are we hating this movie only because we expected more? Is the movie really good, but we can't see it? I think if we haters came out and said "this movie SUCKS! It's NOTHING like Day/Night/Dawn" then maybe that would be the case. From what I've seen from the other haters (or those who merely dislike, as I do) we actually have beefs with the movie besides "GAR sold out."

So there it is. Feel free to flame away, but be prepared, as I will flame back. :mad:

MinionZombie

11-Mar-2006, 12:05 PM

And running off to live out your days on an island isn't? Or flying off into the sunset? :p

Mikey

11-Mar-2006, 12:52 PM

I don't know why you feel you MUST kick LAND in the ass every other week. God, it's getting tired.

Please move on, put your DVD of LAND away, and maybe just let it die a good death.

Adrenochrome

11-Mar-2006, 07:35 PM

jeeez Arcades, stop whining....we all know you hate it....move on.

erisi236

11-Mar-2006, 07:43 PM

Just a bunch of fireworks as Wussy McPusserson rides into the sunrise. Yay.

quote of the day! :D

Arcades057

12-Mar-2006, 02:00 AM

Glad you liked that, Erisi. Adrenochrome, do not respond to anything I write. Do not read anything I write. We have been through this before. I am not interested in anything you have to say. Ignore me.

Scousezombie

12-Mar-2006, 07:25 PM

Hi again.

I don't wish to argue the whole money thing again either, as I did follow the discussions on the old forum. But I would like to follow up on my earlier post.

I have no difficulty in understanding that they have re-established an economy within the city, what I cannot understand is how that economy can be based on dollars. It would have made more sense if they had had some new type of currency being traded within the city - something akin to 'scrip' which used to be traded in mining towns.

We must assume that it has somehow been possible to restrict the supply of dollars and avoid hyper-inflation (though it's hard to imagine how that could be done, remember the dollars blowing along through the streets in Day) but the fact remains that whatever currency is in use within the Green has no value outside of the self-contained economy within the city.

Unless the briefly mentioned 'Cleveland outpost' still survives, and the people there also happen to use dollars as a form of currency, the ransom is entirely worthless. Kaufmann would not even be particularly weakened by the loss of the money, since he remains in overall control of the entire economy within the city anyway, plus the fact that paper money is easily replacable. If the scavengers had gone out to obtain cash rather than food and medicine, how much do you think they could net in one evening?

I'm not looking to argue with anyone, and I respect the fact that other people have reached different conclusions. I'm just stating that, for me, the use of old-world money seemed strange and spoiled the post-apocalyptic atmosphere somewhat, diminishing my enjoyment of the film.

MinionZombie

12-Mar-2006, 08:51 PM

Again, not fixing for a fight, but thought I'd respond to your points:

Why not the dollar, it's what they know from their old world. The whole point in "The Green" community is to go back to the old days, to what they knew/know. It can't be too hard to set up an economy, what about when people stopped trading services and simple goods for other services and goods for green slips of paper and shiny circles of metal? Of course a piece of paper or a coin is worthless - but it's through the attached value we place on it that means it's worth something - same thing in land by resurrecting the economy of their new, small, society.

As for the cash blowing about in Day - Land takes place somewhere around two to three years after Day of the Dead - all that cash blowing around would have blown away and rotted by the time we get to Land. As for cash sitting in banks - it's locked away - getting a bit of cash out of a shop register isn't going to start an alternative economy either - same goes for most people not wanting to go out raiding - so again, restricted flow of money.

The way they've gone about resurrecting an old society and attaching so much value to stuff is what GAR is going for - the futility of it all, in search of a way to forget about the problem that lies beyond the confines of the city itself.

Mikey

13-Mar-2006, 12:52 AM

I fine your posts to be intelligent and insightful.

Skold

13-Mar-2006, 01:27 AM

I'm just stating that, for me, the use of old-world money seemed strange and spoiled the post-apocalyptic atmosphere somewhat, diminishing my enjoyment of the film.

i found the use of money in the Green to be a pretty witty commentary on the money we use today. The gold standard has not been used in the US since 1971, which means that the only reason that US money has value is because the Fed says so. Since nothing backs it, however, US money is little more than green tickets that govern us just because our government says it should. Just like money in the Green.

MinionZombie

13-Mar-2006, 11:46 AM

Thank you very much Mikey, on the flipside I still laugh my ass off at fart jokes - the cat on the toilet in Date Movie - the only bit I larfed at, hehe :p

ZombieFood

13-Mar-2006, 06:02 PM

I don't know why you feel you MUST kick LAND in the ass every other week. God, it's getting tired.

Please move on, put your DVD of LAND away, and maybe just let it die a good death.
I may not agree with DJ, but it is the "why people hate LoTD" thread....

Seems odd not to expect people to complain about what they did not like about LoTD here.

MinionZombie

13-Mar-2006, 07:44 PM

Ah, but we're coming back with our side of the argument. People bitched about it in the "love" thread and subsequently hit back with this one. It'd be daft not to engage in a two-sided debate, only fair innit. I try to be level-headed and lay my arguments out rationally ... some folk get more heated, I try and keep myself from getting heated.

ZombieFood

13-Mar-2006, 08:18 PM

I'm just stating that, for me, the use of old-world money seemed strange

To mis-quote Kaufman: "In a world where the dead are returning to life, 'strange' loses much of its meaning." :D

But I have to admit, I was wondering also why they didn't grab the cash while they were scavanging...:confused:

Sadly, I think the use of old world money was less a symbolic gesture (meaning that it symbolized the past way of life connecting to the new in someway) and more of a "dumbing down" to pander to audiences that may be less familiar with the genre.

Scousezombie

13-Mar-2006, 09:42 PM

MinionZombie

14-Mar-2006, 10:41 AM

The money that's 'out there' would either have rotted (in the screet), be securely locked away in a bank vault, or just be a few bucks stashed in a register. Just because we didn't see them taking a few bucks out of the till in the film, doesn't mean they didn't do it in the overall story.

As for dumbing down, I think it's far from it, you've gotta actually think about the use of money in the film, rather than going the Hack Snyder route of just telling everybody exaclty how the game is being played - that's dumbing down.

Just my two cents...

DjfunkmasterG

14-Mar-2006, 03:32 PM

That's my problem with the whole premise, ZombieFood

One scavenger getting lucky (or making a serious and organised raid on a money depot - which I admit may be harder than I first envisaged given that a million and one zombies would descend upon anyone who blew up a big city vault!) and hitting upon a large stockpile of cash can screw up the entire economy of the Green overnight.

Money works in RL because economies are so large, and monetary supply can be controlled, and even then it sometimes goes horribly wrong (I'm thinking of the German Weimar rebublic where people burned money because it was cheaper than fuel!!).

Both Kaufmann and Cholo acted like money had value beyond the confines of the Green, but it was never explained why, given that it wasn't confirmed that there were any other cities in existence.

To put it simply, if I had a large gun pointed in Kaufmann's direction, and intended to leave the Green never to return, I can think of many more valuable commodities to extract than money, which may or may not have any value anywhere else. Antibiotics and painkillers to name but two. Even a good bottle of Kentucky Bourbon...

I'm not going to labour this point to death (no pun intended!), it's been interesting hearing everyone's different take on the subject.

I still want to know what those people in the suits *did* for a living (although that question belongs in a different thread!)

The point of the ransom was to further the plot, however, with a vehicle like Dead Reckoning, especially with the fire power it had, knocking over a bank vault would be much eaiser than holding out for a ransom.

People sometimes forget DEAD RECKONING... Why would you hold a city for ransom when chances are the economy is fitted just for one location? Now what gets me even more, even after reading this thread in depth is why hold out ofr $5million when there is probably 30 million in all the banks that are on your route to anywhere.

So now we have a new equation in the mix that helps solidify why Land is weak, and panders to the hollywood mainstream. GAR had us thinking with the first three films... now we think so much we find all the plot holes he didn't.

bassman

14-Mar-2006, 06:06 PM

But if there is all this money in the Green, doesn't that mean that the scavengers had to go out to retrieve it at some point? Meaning that there wouldn't be much left around except for a few cash registers(which would have probably been looted by everyday people at the beginning of the ....um "disaster" I guess. Think about Katrina).

It's been a little while since I last watched LAND, but isn't it mentioned several times throughout the film that there are a few other places across the country just like the Green? If that's true then probably most of the money(the banks and such) would have already been raided and dispersed to the different "colonies".

So maybe Cholo was looking for the money so that he could make it to other colonies, buy and trade things, and then get back to the road?

MinionZombie

14-Mar-2006, 09:17 PM

Well of course the colonies have a lot of money to themselves - all controlled by those at the top and filtered down like a drip where necessary. With Cholo demanding the money - he was being paid to do a job, Kaufman's dirty work, but didn't get paid in the end and was negated his 'right' to live in the Green itself.

Cholo goes for the truck - which is a serious part of the lifeline of the community - and demands his money, as if zombies weren't running around (if he'd have been stiffed on the bill in the old world he'd have done the same sort of thing) - it's also a way to try and 'stick it to the man' no matter what he does (get a bunch of cash or keep the truck).

Scousezombie

14-Mar-2006, 09:59 PM

Hi Bassman,

Regarding the money within the Green, when Kaufmann took over and fortified the city there would presumably have been a lot of money already stored in various bank vaults within it, plus the money held by survivors who had barricaded themselves within the city or evacuated there when it was established as a haven.

I may be totally wrong, but I'd have thought it would be easier to establish a new currency within the Green than try collect up the money from the surrouding areas to control supply.

Foxy states that a 'Jug of good Kentucky goes for $1,500 back in town' - I'm thinking that the $5,000,000 ransom may not have gone very far even if Cholo had gotten his hands on it! It also suggests very steep inflation.

Regarding the state of play in the wider world:

We're told during the opening sequence that the undead rising is a global phenomenon and that cities everywhere are under siege. We're also told that that people are establishing outposts in big cities and raiding rural towns for supplies.

Later in the film Kaufmann refers to having established outposts with food and supplies that will help the chosen few to go 'anywhere they want to go' -when pressed by one of the board on where they will go he states that alternative sites have been selected for 'us and our families'. The others (meaning the ordinary people) can be 'replaced by others'. He doesn't elaborate on whether these other sites are already populated or not.

After Riley takes Dead Reckoning back from Cholo he asks Cholo where he will head off to, Cholo refers to an 'outpost in Cleveland' which Riley says hasnt been heard from for a while.

What can we draw from all this? It could be that Cholo knew of other places to head to, but chose the Cleveland outpost because it was closer and he needed medical attention (he'd been wounded when Dead Reckoning was re-taken). More troubling is the fact that the board member didn't seem to know where they would head to if the Green was lost, and he was presumably in a good position to know if there were other surviving cities still in existence.

bluball

14-Mar-2006, 10:54 PM

I was one who loved Land when it first came out, loved the script (second, filmed version, not the one w/out Big Daddy), loved it all. Now, having seen it so many times I feel less and less enthusiastic about it...I appreciate the story and the editing but NEVER felt scared or disturbed as I did in GAR's earlier Dead films; never really felt suspense (spoiled by reading the script?), cringe now at Big Daddy's yelling. I suppose it was when I watched it with a group some months ago and one said how boring it was, silly, they laughed at Big Daddy....I kept defending the movie but in retrospect there simply are not enough hooks for the movie to keep grabbing me now. It's over; we broke up. I am not in love any more. :( Could it be that If were not Romero I would not have gushed over it, not have bought it? I don't know...I can't separate the two as it does feel "Romeroesque" in its themes but is so polished that it feels too safe now. Yes, a parable about class and terrorism using Dead protagonists is safe to me :rockbrow: it has some great elements, and the story is cool IMO, but it simply has not grown on me at all. Dead, Day, and Night are movies that chill me to the bone and are milestones of pure horror...Land broke no new ground for me, really. It is well-made IMO, well-acted (clarke aside IMO) but it just is not scary, is too safe with its characters (sacrifice a few---make it matter. Kill Charlie, or slack, reanimate them, what have you)...I wish it was shocking and disturbing but it feels too safe. Cholo coming back----eh, okay, but have him and Big daddy chow down on Kaufman, etc. There are SO MANY ways we all would have improved upon the movie or story...the extras were not grimy, desperate, syphilitic and haggard enough for me....details for me make a difference. I took her to the prom but now it's over; if you love Land, I am happy for you and envy you. I love Romero's other Dead films, and aspects of Land rule, but on a whole it's not one I will "love".

DjfunkmasterG

14-Mar-2006, 11:23 PM

Well of course the colonies have a lot of money to themselves - all controlled by those at the top and filtered down like a drip where necessary. With Cholo demanding the money - he was being paid to do a job, Kaufman's dirty work, but didn't get paid in the end and was negated his 'right' to live in the Green itself.

When did he have a right? In a world populated by zombies... democracy is out the window.

Just noticed this thread has much more activity than the "Like" thread. Kinda Ironic aint it?

AcesandEights

15-Mar-2006, 12:49 AM

Just noticed this thread has much more activity than the "Like" thread. Kinda Ironic aint it?

Not at all. Considering it always seemed, on an anecdotal level, that the community was split in the old forums on this movie, I don't find it the least bit out of character that people on the web flock to controversy. And let's not forget, everyone hates almost everything according to the internet. Chalk it up to the act of tearing down being safer than putting your balls out there and telling people you actually love...polka (or whatever it is you love that most everyone else would hate), or the fact that people think it's cool to be cleverly sarcastic, or whatever you like, but negativity is an attention getter.

Anyway, I always found that the argument regarding money resolved itself pretty squarely.

People sometimes forget DEAD RECKONING... Why would you hold a city for ransom when chances are the economy is fitted just for one location? Now what gets me even more, even after reading this thread in depth is why hold out ofr $5million when there is probably 30 million in all the banks that are on your route to anywhere.

So, you're going to try and blow a few bank vaults open with precious, and, I'm more than certain, rare ammunition to get to what may, or may not be, in the vaults? And this assumes that you wouldn't blast a considerable amount of the funds (if there's a fair amount of funds in the vault(s) in question) to bits with the missiles? Let's not forget about the likelihood that firing off heavy ordinance in an urban environment might bring hordes of the undead down on these folks. That might not mean much given Dead Reckonings defensive capabilities, but it will make re-supplying a much more pressing and insistent concern if a horde of several hundred play pile on at a few of the sites chosen for heists.

None of this makes sense to me (relax, I know this isn't what YOU would do per se, and that you were just suggesting an if/then scenario). But then again, Cholo's actions don't make too much sense either, do they? It's almost like Cholo was consumed by his desire to look out for number 1 and his, pretty much, psychopathic need to lash out in a world he found to be unfair. Cholo's actions didn't seem to make sense, but it did seem to be a very human reaction.

Hmmm, a GAR character who doesn't do what makes sense from a rational, thought out perspective, but instead brings doom down on his own head by reacting selfishly to baser human desires and emotions. No, that doesn't sound like every other character in a Dead movie :rockbrow:

So now we have a new equation in the mix that helps solidify why Land is weak, and panders to the hollywood mainstream. GAR had us thinking with the first three films... now we think so much we find all the plot holes he didn't.

I couldn't disagree with this more. You're simultaneously bringing into question the rule set of the world in which the characters live and making assumptions to fit your own opinion. Without having a thorough understanding of the outside world in Land how can you judge the actions of the people in it? And for that matter, aren't you ignoring cues that Kaufman's plan, doomed as it is, has just enough merit for a desperate, megalomaniacal greedy ****er to graspingly hold onto? There's references made to other human bastions and his money schtick has already worked once (and, for all we know, may be working in other the isolated hold-out settlements).

Maybe there's not enough contextual knowledge of the world the character's lived in, maybe this really is a shortcoming of the film, but it really sounded like the attachment to money was a double-edged farce. Did it seem utterly foolish that people held onto what they knew, the familiar social-control of wealth, in a world gone mad? Yes, from a rational, survival-minded perspective, it would seem foolish to most of people outside of the situation. But, given what we know about people and their habits, it's not really surprising in the least. It just seems to not make sense from a rationalist's point of view, becasue people are, more often than not, self-destructive, creatures of habit who prefer the easy and familiar to logical adaptation. And even if you disagree with this last statement, this has always seemed to be how GAR represents humanity on average in his Dead films.

To me, this is what GAR meant to do.

Just my two cents <----not meant to be a money related pun :sneaky:

DjfunkmasterG

15-Mar-2006, 02:34 AM

I will admit you did put it in perspective a bit. It still doesn't save what to most is a medicore film. However, you made a well thought out point and deserve some rep for that. :D

bluball

15-Mar-2006, 04:10 AM

The money debate will rage on forever about LOTD...for some it's a perfect way to go, others just can't buy it. No one way (buying it or not) is better than another IMO (I am one who buys into the new society based in money angle) although not accepting the basic premise will no doubt turn many off from the final film, ya think? Clearly GAR has considered this but rolled the dice anyway...I commend him for sticking to his vision, even if it turned out to be a far from perfect film IMO

ZombieFood

15-Mar-2006, 06:04 AM

I'm thinking, as I beleive you are suggesting, that without more knowledge of the Green (much less the outside world) the argument regarding the use of currency is speculative.

Yet at the same time, perhaps GAR had a dual purpose for the use of currency in this movie. For the casual veiwer, the money would be simply dismissed or even overlooked entirely. But the for, um, dedicated viewer, it would be a topic of discussion for years to come.

Such is the genius of GAR. Vive la debate!

MinionZombie

15-Mar-2006, 10:44 AM

That's the thing - Cholo still believes there is such thing as a democracy in that world - another little nugget from GAR that these people believe they're going back to normal.

As for Cholo and his 'right' to move into the Green, I meant that Cholo himself believed he had the right to do it as he believed he'd earned that right, through working for Kaufman - and he had enough money to do it (had he been paid of course).

Just to clarify...

DjfunkmasterG

15-Mar-2006, 10:30 PM

Not at all. Considering it always seemed, on an anecdotal level, that the community was split in the old forums on this movie, I don't find it the least bit out of character that people on the web flock to controversy. And let's not forget, everyone hates almost everything according to the internet. Chalk it up to the act of tearing down being safer than putting your balls out there and telling people you actually love...polka (or whatever it is you love that most everyone else would hate), or the fact that people think it's cool to be cleverly sarcastic, or whatever you like, but negativity is an attention getter.

Anyway, I always found that the argument regarding money resolved itself pretty squarely.

So, you're going to try and blow a few bank vaults open with precious, and, I'm more than certain, rare ammunition to get to what may, or may not be, in the vaults? And this assumes that you wouldn't blast a considerable amount of the funds (if there's a fair amount of funds in the vault(s) in question) to bits with the missiles? Let's not forget about the likelihood that firing off heavy ordinance in an urban environment might bring hordes of the undead down on these folks. That might not mean much given Dead Reckonings defensive capabilities, but it will make re-supplying a much more pressing and insistent concern if a horde of several hundred play pile on at a few of the sites chosen for heists.

None of this makes sense to me (relax, I know this isn't what YOU would do per se, and that you were just suggesting an if/then scenario). But then again, Cholo's actions don't make too much sense either, do they? It's almost like Cholo was consumed by his desire to look out for number 1 and his, pretty much, psychopathic need to lash out in a world he found to be unfair. Cholo's actions didn't seem to make sense, but it did seem to be a very human reaction.

Hmmm, a GAR character who doesn't do what makes sense from a rational, thought out perspective, but instead brings doom down on his own head by reacting selfishly to baser human desires and emotions. No, that doesn't sound like every other character in a Dead movie :rockbrow:

I couldn't disagree with this more. You're simultaneously bringing into question the rule set of the world in which the characters live and making assumptions to fit your own opinion. Without having a thorough understanding of the outside world in Land how can you judge the actions of the people in it? And for that matter, aren't you ignoring cues that Kaufman's plan, doomed as it is, has just enough merit for a desperate, megalomaniacal greedy ****er to graspingly hold onto? There's references made to other human bastions and his money schtick has already worked once (and, for all we know, may be working in other the isolated hold-out settlements).

Maybe there's not enough contextual knowledge of the world the character's lived in, maybe this really is a shortcoming of the film, but it really sounded like the attachment to money was a double-edged farce. Did it seem utterly foolish that people held onto what they knew, the familiar social-control of wealth, in a world gone mad? Yes, from a rational, survival-minded perspective, it would seem foolish to most of people outside of the situation. But, given what we know about people and their habits, it's not really surprising in the least. It just seems to not make sense from a rationalist's point of view, becasue people are, more often than not, self-destructive, creatures of habit who prefer the easy and familiar to logical adaptation. And even if you disagree with this last statement, this has always seemed to be how GAR represents humanity on average in his Dead films.

To me, this is what GAR meant to do.

Just my two cents <----not meant to be a money related pun :sneaky:

Actually what is there to judge about the outside world... it is infested with zombies. Face facts, Romero dropped the ball on this one and turned in a half assed sequel to his dead saga.

Svengoolie

15-Mar-2006, 11:03 PM

I gotta go along with you on this one, DjfunkmasterG.

Oh, well....there's always the original Dawn of the Dead!:sneaky:

AcesandEights

16-Mar-2006, 12:02 AM

Actually what is there to judge about the outside world... it is infested with zombies. Face facts, Romero dropped the ball on this one and turned in a half assed sequel to his dead saga.

When I say outside world, I mean the world outside of that particular city. To be specifc, we don't exactly know what people are basing their hopes on in regards to there still being viable settlements where money may/is an accepted medium of exchange.

I also think that the more important point I was trying to make, that everything in the story is logical given the nature of humanity, is unaffected by the above.

Arcades057

16-Mar-2006, 07:39 AM

I just watched Land again the other day (well, I had it on for ambience while I played Civ. 4) and noticed something. I wasn't pulled in. When the gunfire went off, when someone called out "stenches," when the music changed; nothing got my attention. Clueless is on in the background now and I'll tell you what, Alicia Silverstone's legs get my attention a lot more than Land did.

I will give you this about Land: It does leave it open for a sequel. Will there be a sequel? Most likely. I'm sure it made enough to warrant one worldwide. Will it be better than Land, I sure hope so.

On another subject, I grew up watching the Star Wars movies. I saw Empire and Jedi when I was 5 or six and discovered years later that there was ANOTHER ONE. I was hooked. I try to watch the originals at least once a year just to see if I missed something. When the special editions were released I ran to the theaters and devoured them. I stand by my insistence that the SEs ARE better than the originals (aside from a few stupid cutesy scenes added for kids, that is). When the Phantom Menace was released I saw it on the first day at a 3pm showing. Meh. It was OK, Darth Maul is one of the coolest villains of all time (it's true that he's Pete from Shaun of the Dead, no? I think I heard that on the commentary). The story was a little flat, Jar Jar was stupid, and the idiotic childish names (Jar Jar, Mace) were an omen of future stupidity to come. I still saw Attack of the Clones on the first week. Well, it could've been worse. The stupid names continued (Jango and Dooku, anyone?) and the storyline, again, fell flat. It's easy to see where things are going but Ian Mckellan I think (the guy who played Palpatine) pulled off some pretty good scenes. I felt as though I'd wasted my time with those two movies. They seemed to be geared more toward little kids than adults, the people who made Star Wars the highest grossing movie of all time.

Then came Revenge of the Sith. Everything I wanted to see was shown in one movie. More stupid names (Gen. Grievous and the Jedis' names), the acting was TERRIBLE this time, Darth Vader does NOT emote like a friggin Goth kid... Besides that the movie rocked. It took 5 years to get something worthwhile out of the new movies but it happened. I was sated. Nothing was left to imagine about the before-a-New-Hope era.

Segwaying into the Dead franchise... Dawn is arguably the best offering of the 4 GAR movies. We had to survive through Day (good in its own right but lacking most of what makes a movie good) and stomach and go to war over Land... But will the next one (IF) be worth the wait? Had GAR "gone Hollywood" just to appease the masses, only to smack them all with another tense, edge of your seat, gotta leave the theater, can't stand the tension, entre like Dawn '78 next time? Does he have another one in him?

I submit that he MIGHT. I could be wrong. There was enough wrong with Land to show that he could very well be slipping. We'll see.

If you've read through that you're a trooper! :D

MinionZombie

16-Mar-2006, 11:09 AM

Good point there Ace, and might I add something to the overall conversation. If GAR had included every single little thing to explain every single little thing in the whole zombie universe he has created all the complainers would be complaining about the film having a lack of focus and be wishing he had just concentrated on The Green.

If GAR had explained every single thing (like the use of money) in the film it would have turned out a total hodge-podge of bits n pieces and had no real aim, just a scattergun approach you'd normally associate with Hack Snyder and his ilk.

Fortunately GAR concentrated on a smaller group (albeit bigger in the grand scheme of the Dead saga).

Dobe Dobe

16-Mar-2006, 02:10 PM

I keep hearing people talk about the extreme gore in LOTD. I haven't seen any that these people talk about. I also hate the CGI blood and carnage. It's KNB EFX Group for crying out loud, they did Wishmaster, assisted on Day of the Dead, they did Leatherface, how can they sit by and watch a computer head explode with blood? The CGI blood was so obviously fake too.

"They're just looking for a place to go"... WTF!? You shoot those damn zombies!

And any movie with a midget can't be taken seriously.

bassman

16-Mar-2006, 02:38 PM

(it's true that he's Pete from Shaun of the Dead, no? I think I heard that on the commentary)

He's the voice of Darth Maul. Not the actual person playing the character. Ray Park was the person portraying Darth Maul. He's the guy that played Toad on the first "X-men" movie...

And any movie with a midget can't be taken seriously.

Ever seen "The Wizard of Oz"? "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory"? "High Plains Drifter"? "The Man With the Golden Gun"(007)? "Simon Birch"? "Bad Santa"? "Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me"? "S.W.A.T."?

See where i'm going with this? ;)

Dobe Dobe

16-Mar-2006, 03:08 PM

Ever seen "The Wizard of Oz"? "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory"? "High Plains Drifter"? "The Man With the Golden Gun"(007)? "Simon Birch"? "Bad Santa"? "Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me"? "S.W.A.T."?

See where i'm going with this? ;)
Yeah, you're naming movies with midgets. Note: none of them are horror films. Maybe I should have been more clear with my sentence. Oh, and Bad Santa, Willy Wonka, and Austin Powers were really serious movies weren't they?

bassman

16-Mar-2006, 04:17 PM

Oh....you wanted horror films only? Okay...

"The Masque of the Red Death", "Tales From The Crypt: Bordello of Blood", "Horror Hospital", "Blood Sucking Freaks", "Scared to Death", "Freaks", Etc...

My point is...why would a little person detract from a film? They are people too, you know. And some of them are actors;)

Oh, and Bad Santa, Willy Wonka, and Austin Powers were really serious movies weren't they?

No....And the dead walking the earth in "Land of the Dead"(or any zombie film) is?:rockbrow:

Dobe Dobe

16-Mar-2006, 04:21 PM

Oh....you wanted horror films only? Okay...

"The Masque of the Red Death", "Tales From The Crypt: Bordello of Blood", "Horror Hospital", "Blood Sucking Freaks", "Scared to Death", "Freaks", Etc...

My point is...why would a little person detract from a film? They are people too, you know. And some of them are actors;)

No....And the dead walking the earth in "Land of the Dead"(or any zombie film) is?:rockbrow:
Yes. *crosses arm in an upset manner*

I was merely pointing out all I hated about LOTD. :P

bassman

16-Mar-2006, 04:51 PM

No...im just curious as to why you dislike the film alittle more due to a little person being in it. I've heard several people make the same comment and I just don't understand why. It's not like they are freaks that are any different than you or I.

I would understand if you said you disliked the character that the little person played, but you made the comment "any movie with a midget can't be taken seriously"(which, I didn't know a movie about zombies was meant to be taken seriously in the first place...). Now i'm just curious as to what your reasoning is on this matter...

Dobe Dobe

16-Mar-2006, 05:56 PM

When I look at midgets all I see is a midget. I hear all the jokes and just laugh. No matter what midget or what movie, it's a joke to me.

bassman

16-Mar-2006, 05:58 PM

Whatever floats your boat, captain....

Dobe Dobe

16-Mar-2006, 05:58 PM

You asked for my reasoning then don't accept it? That's pretty lame buddy.

bassman

16-Mar-2006, 06:09 PM

Nah dude....I accept your angle on it all. Just don't agree with it. That's all...

No biggie...difference of opinions/humanity....moving on...

Dobe Dobe

16-Mar-2006, 06:12 PM

The blue tint ****ed me off too.

bassman

16-Mar-2006, 06:17 PM

The blue tint ****ed me off too.

Yeah, several people have made that same complaint. Myself, I really liked it.

All-in-all I enjoyed the film. Is the best of the franchise? Definitely not.

Some of my biggest complaints were the length, Eugene Clark as Big daddy(I love the idea of Big Daddy but someone else should have played him, and the faster pace compared to the other films. Though I guess that would fall in with my first complaint about the length. I have a feeling that Romero was told to shorten it down by the studio....which If I was in that position, I would have done it too. At least he got the fourth installment out there! It could've just been a script that sat on his desk until he passed on...

Dobe Dobe

16-Mar-2006, 06:20 PM

It could've just been a script that sat on his desk until he passed on...
Sounds good. lol.

bassman

16-Mar-2006, 06:23 PM

That's harsh, dude. Harsh:D

Dobe Dobe

16-Mar-2006, 06:25 PM

I truly have lost my respect for him. I waited for a long time to see LOTD and it really just did not deliver anything I wanted. I loved it in the theatre, but everything is better on a huge screen. I bought the unrated DVD and I will NEVER watch it again.

DjfunkmasterG

16-Mar-2006, 06:26 PM

It might be harsh, but it's true. I would have rather it sat on his desk and something better come along, or him pass away then see him tarnish himself with the fans by turning in something mediocre.

bassman

16-Mar-2006, 06:29 PM

Every director has a film that's not necessarily up to par with their others. Which agree with you, although I enjoy "Land" and you don't....I can still agree with you that it's not as good as the original three.

Maybe his next one will be better. Keep your fingers crossed...

It might be harsh, but it's true. I would have rather it sat on his desk and something better come along, or him pass away then see him tarnish himself with the fans by turning in something mediocre.

Oh come on, man. I know you don't like it(I have my complaints with it, too) but does it make you like Night, Dawn, or Day any less? He didn't "tarnish" himself. It just wasn't what it COULD HAVE been. You never know....his next might blow us away(if his lungs don't give out on him....damn cancer sticks)...

MinionZombie

16-Mar-2006, 06:32 PM

Dobe Dobe

16-Mar-2006, 06:32 PM

Zombielord69

16-Mar-2006, 07:59 PM

Not sure if it's just me, or does Day of the Dead give you a distinctly 'green' feel colour wise. Like LOTD is a "blue" film, Day is a "green" film. Dawn isn't really a colour...but is quite garish, and Night is obviously B/W vibe-wise.

Oh yeh - 300th post madness!!! :D:D:cool::cool:

i think the reason day has a green feel is because of 1. some of the zombies are really green. 2. the green outfits the soldiers had on. and probably alot more. it was probably the most used color in the movie

DjfunkmasterG

16-Mar-2006, 08:59 PM

Every director has a film that's not necessarily up to par with their others. Which agree with you, although I enjoy "Land" and you don't....I can still agree with you that it's not as good as the original three.

Maybe his next one will be better. Keep your fingers crossed...

Oh come on, man. I know you don't like it(I have my complaints with it, too) but does it make you like Night, Dawn, or Day any less? He didn't "tarnish" himself. It just wasn't what it COULD HAVE been. You never know....his next might blow us away(if his lungs don't give out on him....damn cancer sticks)...

You have a point! I still love Night, Dawn and Day. Nothing will ever tarnish my memories for those films.

bluball

16-Mar-2006, 09:11 PM

See The Station Agent...set in New Jersey (yeah!), with a great lead, Peter Dinklage (sp?) who happens to be a dwarf. It's a small (no pun intended) indep .movie but really a great ****ing story. Great characterizations and dialogue. There, I have joined the midget debate....:rolleyes: :D

Harold W Brown

16-Mar-2006, 09:36 PM

This is not a flame, just a discussion. Please keep it in mind as I disagree with you.

For many of us, LOTD was to be the master's finest entry,

If so, your viewing experience was doomed from the start. To expect the film to surpass Dawn or Night is asking to be disappointed. Honestly.

You mention poor performances, when I can find acting in each of Romero's previous Dead flicks that are worse than anything in LAND. Examples? Tom in NIGHT, Wooley in DAWN, Miguel in DAY. And you could argue others as well. Does this mean LAND is better? No. It means subpar acting can't sink a film. Or a Romero film, at any rate.

Although the script I read and the final product were slightly different, the script to screen translation was mediocre at best, and this is why I think most DEAD fans, find this to be the worst of the series.

I don't know that most Dead fans feel that way, though. Most probably didn't read the script, therefore they didn't have mismanaged expectations.

LAND wasn't perfect. It has improved on subsequent viewings for me. Only time will tell if it has the staying power of DAY. But I have to wonder if your excitement (and your personal involvement) set you up to hate the film.

bassman

16-Mar-2006, 09:46 PM

Good input, Harold. That's been my theory from the beginning. People went in expecting too much.

Not that I think it is Romero's masterpiece or anything, but it is definitely not as bad as some try to make it out to be. I think after 20 years of anticipation and everyone coming up with their own ideas of what they would have liked for it to be, they were setting themselves up not to like it.

I guess this is the sort of thing that happens when you're dealing with fans of a franchise....\

And alot of people say it is without a doubt Romero's worst film. To be honest, I enjoy it more than "Creepshow". More than "Monkey Shines" as well. Is it the worst? Is it "Legendary director George A. Romero's masterpiece" like the trailer stated? Nope...

Harold W Brown

16-Mar-2006, 10:03 PM

30 minutes may help it but I dunno about you, all I can say is that I just didn't feel threatened at any point in the movie. So adding in 30 minutes maynot really do anything for it, however I am curious as to what you think should have been added.

All those skyscraper people who were stuck between the electric fence and the zombies? Just one subplot showing what life was like for them in the tower, what they did and what they gave up to get there. I wanted to see scenes of that sterile lifestyle.

BlueRoseRomeo

17-Mar-2006, 12:45 AM

I wanted to jump in here. I am a newbie to the HPOTD page but a fan of all things zombie. I wanted to say that I felt that LOTD was a great movie. yes it had its plot falls and some little things about it that made it not perfect...but in a world of teenage goof movies and stupid comedies that are anything but funny I welcome this movie.

Now I will say one thing...maybe I missed something even as many times as I have watched the movies...I bought Land of the Dead thinking "FINALLY...They will say WHY it happened". Unless I missed something...I was wrong. Ok IN day of the dead the said that whole when hell is full the dead shall inherit the earth. Maybe its not important...but I just would like to maybe have had something about it saying why.

I would also have liked to find out what happened to the hero's of our other parts.

Ok well for my first post...please don't get ****ed at me. I am new here...

"Be gentle...its my first time"

Cartma7546

17-Mar-2006, 02:26 AM

Out of all of them, I personally rate the 4 in this order..

Day,Dawn,Night, and finally Land..

ok, now throw what you must at me..

these are only my opinions!

:skull:

For the most part I agree with you, however I think Dawn deserves to be on the top of the list without question. I love all the movies for different reasons as I'm sure you do but when you look at the figures I think Dawn takes the cake. So here is my list of the movies: 5)night 90 4) day 3)night2) land 1)Dawn

bassman

17-Mar-2006, 04:18 AM

Hi Bluerose....always nice to see new fans around here.

As far as an explanation in Romero's films....that will probably never happen. Romero has always left it open to speculation and to some(myself included) that is probably best.

As far as the quote that you were remembering from "Day", I think you were probably thinking of the quote from "Dawn" that is "When there's no more room in hell, the dead shall walk the Earth". But that is just a theory by one of the characters(Peter) because of something his father once told him in the past.

But Romero has never stated why the dead started to rise and I'm pretty sure I've seen interviews where he's said the he never will(if he gets to make another before he passes)

Hope this helps:)

Harold W Brown

17-Mar-2006, 04:19 AM

Is it "Legendary director George A. Romero's masterpiece" like the trailer stated? Nope...

Well, that marketing approach didn't help anything, but to steal a Simpsons joke, anyone who BELIEVES a tagline that has "masterpiece" in the title probably also wanted to sue the producers of "The Neverending Story" for false advertising...

bassman

17-Mar-2006, 01:50 PM

Well, that marketing approach didn't help anything, but to steal a Simpsons joke, anyone who BELIEVES a tagline that has "masterpiece" in the title probably also wanted to sue the producers of "The Neverending Story" for false advertising...

Haha....true. It always seemed strange to me that "The Never Ending Story" needed a "Part Two":rockbrow:

DjfunkmasterG

17-Mar-2006, 04:16 PM

It would need a Part 2 because it is the "Never Ending Story" :evil: :D

bassman

17-Mar-2006, 04:55 PM

But if the first is called "The Never Ending Story", mean the story to the original film never ends....there would never need to be a sequel.:cool:

ZombieFood

17-Mar-2006, 05:24 PM

Every director has a film that's not necessarily up to par with their others.

Star Wars franchise? Anyone?

George Lucas has FIVE films that were not up to par with the others.

The first was brilliant. The last five were marketing ploys. :mad:

bassman

17-Mar-2006, 05:44 PM

Star Wars franchise? Anyone?

George Lucas has FIVE films that were not up to par with the others.

The first was brilliant. The last five were marketing ploys. :mad:

Are you kidding, dude?? "Empire" and "Jedi" are legendary. Mainly "Empire"...."Jedi" started to get alittle childish. I don't much like the new trilogy but the old kicks *ss. "Empire" Is actually my favorite out of all 6 films. Irvan Kirshner new what he was doing - character driven film;)

It's funny that the two best(imo) weren't even written or directed by George Lucas....
The first one was good, but to be honest I think he got lucky somehow. Then when he got back to writing/directing on Episode One.....well, i'm sure you know the result.

DjfunkmasterG

17-Mar-2006, 06:34 PM

Lucas wrote part Empire and Jedi, he just didn't direct.

bassman

17-Mar-2006, 08:13 PM

No, Lucas got credit for the "story" of "Empire" and "Jedi", but Lawrence Kasdan wrote them. Which pretty much means that Lucas said, "Okay, this needs to happen and Luke will find out this, etc". Lawrence Kasdan is responsible for the awesome script. As well as the Indiana Jones flicks....Lucas had the "ideas" and someone else turned it into what it is today.

If I remeber the documentary "Empire of Dreams" correctly, Lucas only wrote a few page treatment for the stories of "Empire" and "Jedi" and handed it over to Kasdan.

This is now why I feel the latest trilogy sucks(among other things). Lucas tried to do it all himself...

ZombieFood

17-Mar-2006, 08:58 PM

Are you kidding, dude?? "Empire" and "Jedi" are legendary.

I am old enough to remember seeing Star Wars on screen the first time it was out in 1977. There was nothing like it. Never will be again. It was unique. Nothing can compare.

Here is why I believe this is true: The difference is before "Empire" (and subsequent episodes) were released, "ownership" (for lack of a better term) of the story belonged to the viewer. Obviously, the story was George Lucas's, but the viewer was free to imagine a whole range of possibilities that occurred before and after "Star Wars." Remember that this was a time when we didn't know that Darth Vader was Luke's father. Or Leia was his sister. She was just a princess. Their was mystery surrounding it all, and without anything else to go on, the viewer's mind was free to imagine an endless world of possibilities. Wat would happen to Luke? Would he marry Leia? What happened to Obi Wan? Why did he disappear? Who made those droids? The list went on and on...

With each new episode, the story was taken away from the viewer and cemented into George Lucas's vision. Questions were answered. The mystery disappeared. While there is nothing obviously wrong with that, it limited the freedom that one has to imagine.

No, "Star Wars" was unique. And every once in a while, I'll watch it. And if I'm lucky, every once in a while I can see a glimpse of the movie, the mystery, and the joy that "Star Wars" once was.

Svengoolie

17-Mar-2006, 11:56 PM

I'm a big fan of the first three, but Episodes 1-3 sucked.

The Phantom Menace was the biggest letdown of my life, until I saw Land of the Dead last summer.....:(

Skold

18-Mar-2006, 03:25 AM

Anyone see season two of Spaced? This is the show by Simon Pegg which lead into Shaun of the Dead. Anyh00, there's a hilaruious episode where he sees Phantom Menace and he gets so mad about how much it sucked that he loses his job and ends up alienating evryone in his life. lol!

Cody

19-Mar-2006, 06:10 AM

I need to see it so bad

bassman

19-Mar-2006, 09:37 PM

I am old enough to remember seeing Star Wars on screen the first time it was out in 1977. There was nothing like it. Never will be again. It was unique. Nothing can compare.

Here is why I believe this is true: The difference is before "Empire" (and subsequent episodes) were released, "ownership" (for lack of a better term) of the story belonged to the viewer. Obviously, the story was George Lucas's, but the viewer was free to imagine a whole range of possibilities that occurred before and after "Star Wars." Remember that this was a time when we didn't know that Darth Vader was Luke's father. Or Leia was his sister. She was just a princess. Their was mystery surrounding it all, and without anything else to go on, the viewer's mind was free to imagine an endless world of possibilities. Wat would happen to Luke? Would he marry Leia? What happened to Obi Wan? Why did he disappear? Who made those droids? The list went on and on...

With each new episode, the story was taken away from the viewer and cemented into George Lucas's vision. Questions were answered. The mystery disappeared. While there is nothing obviously wrong with that, it limited the freedom that one has to imagine.

No, "Star Wars" was unique. And every once in a while, I'll watch it. And if I'm lucky, every once in a while I can see a glimpse of the movie, the mystery, and the joy that "Star Wars" once was.

I understand what you're saying. I wasn't putting down "Stars Wars"....it's still the sh*t. I just believe that Kirshner took the series where it needed to go with "Empire". Just my opinion that "Empire" is the best...

I think we can all agree that "Menace", "Clones", and "Sith" should have never been made:dead: ...

EvilNed

19-Mar-2006, 10:30 PM

The original trilogy rocked, the prequel trilogy sucked (especially part 3).

Anyway, back to Land. I don't hate it, I like it. But I can understand why people are uspet with it, and I'll admit there are faults with it.

The main reason why people probably hate Land is because it's new. No longer is this about the "old world", or the decay of the old world. This film takes place well into the birth of the "new world"! Human civilization has struck up new colonies, new societies etc. etc. We're not shown how this happened, but it happened. This means we lost out on alot of information. It's like Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome. Remember Bartertown? That was the first piece of human civilization we'd seen since Max's family got run over. It had to be explained, and it was so in a pretty simple way. But since the story was about Max and not Bartertown, no extensive introduction was needed (and in a way, we are introduced to it as Max is).

But the characters in Land are living in the city, so we are not shown any first contact with it. Infact, we're barely shown anything at all inside the city. All we get to know is that people live there, some are poor and some are rich. The rest is all fights, jailtime or Kaufman standing around in his apartment. More filler was needed. That's why my favourite scene was the one which ended up on the cutting room floor: The one where Cholo dispatches the "hanged" zombie. More scenes like that!

Also, another reason: The other Day films took place in the "old world", where we live. We can relate to those characters. Yet, we can't really relate to Riley or Cholo who live in a post-apocalyptic society where zombies are part of the everyday life, right? So instanty, this would become a shock to us. We don't like these characters as much as we like the old ones, because we can't relate to them. This is why this film needed more time to develop both "The City", Fiddler's Green and the characters.

And, yes, one of the other faults (this time I blame Romero directly) is that the script is pretty hollywoodish. It's no longer that independent. None of the main characters die (except for Cholo), the ending is supersweet for our heroes and really, Riley may not be the goody-two-shoes some people paint him to be, but he's dull. How could Asia fall in love with him? He was dull, boring and seemed to take everything way to seriously. He seemed depressed, really. I'm not saying that's bad writing, but I'd certainly liked someone a bit more charismatic (altough Simon Baker could still have played the part).

So all in all, Land of the Dead is grocely different than the other films. A way to write the script more like the old trilogy would be to set it up like this:

Instead of following a seasoned veteran of Kaufman's army, let us follow a band of scavangers roaming the land. They come upon Fiddler's Greens raiding party and are taken back to the city. There, they are introduced to this establishment as we, the viewers, are as well, giving us alot more time inside the city and with our characters. Meanwhile, the rest of the film could play out like it did. Cholo and Riley, (while no longer the main characters), can duke it out in the background and our main characters are dragged along with them. Big Daddy, having suffered immensly at the humans hands, still make his way towards the city with his army.

As you can see, this is basicly the exactly same plot. But it's shown from another angle. It's shown from a "newcomer" to Fiddler's Green, much like Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome. This way, the film length would be extended extensively with character and plot establishment. Who wouldn't like that?

But as it is, I like the film. It has it's flaws, and Riley is just way to uncharacteristic for a main character (but would have made a nice plot-character). Big Daddy howls a lot (but otherwise I liked him), and we never really got a feel for Fiddler's Green. And the blue tint was good.

MinionZombie

19-Mar-2006, 10:46 PM

And I think we can all agree this thread needs shooting in the head :p

tju1973

19-Mar-2006, 11:05 PM

I liked Big Daddy in the script...He turned out to be -- well, not the same in the movie to me. I wished he would have been missing his arm, and more decayed. Plus the yellowish eyes were not it for me.
Don't get me wrong, I loved the movie, but it seemed the weakest so for in GAR's zombie run-- maybe it was a victim of being rushed and out of his actual control...

a shame-- oh what could have been...

:( :(

BlueRoseRomeo

20-Mar-2006, 03:36 AM

Well ON issue I have with the whole "star wars was orginal and ground breaking but the rest sucked" the first usally is the one that just blows your mind with the "WOW THATS AMAZING" thoughts. Then you get the second one and..."That was cool" kicks in". Then when the third comes out its like "Ummm...ok...been there". At leastf or a lot of people think that way. I myself I just look at each as its own movie that just continues the story. I look at the Star Wars movies like that...personally If I ranked the movies Episode 3 and 6 are one the top. I understand there is a TV series coming out now that is going to cover the time after 3 and before 4.

But we are talking Dead stuff here...not stars...

Well I still stand by the movie...its great in my eyes.

bassman

20-Mar-2006, 01:26 PM

But we are talking Dead stuff here...not stars...

Aye aye, capain. Nice to know we have you around to keep us on topic:p

The main reason why people probably hate Land is because it's new.

You're right. That has been my theory ever since the film was released. The same thing happened to "Day".

MinionZombie

20-Mar-2006, 02:31 PM

Damn straight the same thing happened to Day - I was further thinking about this whole issue the other day again...

Some folk seem to think that the original trilogy was immaculate, that they were pure and had none of their own problems and that Land is the bastard, punk child that's spoiled everything. But ALL the films in the saga had their troubles and flaws...I really don't understand why some folk are finding it so hard to accept Land into the series ... a tad reactionary I feel.

Svengoolie

20-Mar-2006, 03:34 PM

bassman

20-Mar-2006, 04:13 PM

Personally, I dislike Land....although not as much as I did when I saw it for the first time last summer. Upon a second and third viewing, I liked it a little more...but I still feel it's a poor film overall.

It's Romero's first real attempt at a balls to the wall "social commentary", which I didn't appreciate as much as I did Dawn or even Day's over the top action and gore. The zombies are clearly an allegory to the Arab world in this one, and as such I couldn't identify them as protagonists in any way.

The story and situation itself was pretty much a throwback to his original script for Day written twenty years ago, abeit a little less extreme in most ways...and I wish he'd tried something more new and original than that, and that he'd taken it in a different direction.

But, still...it's better than DOTD:Contagium, that's for sure.:moon:

His first attempt at "balls to the wall social commentary"??? Did you see the original "Dawn"? If that's not in-your-face commentary then I don't know what is.

Throw back to the original script for "Day"? I'm not seeing the connection, here. No scientists, no real military, no trained zombies(smart zombies, yes....but they weren't trained), etc., etc. Personally, I think there are only a few, MINOR connections to the original "Day" script.

Svengoolie

20-Mar-2006, 04:28 PM

Arcades057

20-Mar-2006, 04:37 PM

Land's commentary is a little over the top sometimes. It's clear to see who Big Daddy and the zombies are supposed to represent, regardless of GAR's insistence to the contrary. If I were to make a film about an American with a German accent who had a deep-seated hatred of other races and led his people in an uprising against the US government and instituted a new order in the country (let's say the US for example) it'd be clear to everyone who that man was supposed to represent. I could insist that was not the case from the top of every mountain, but anyone who watched the movie would know.

Big Daddy, AKA, the dead Bin Laden turned me off the film. Had it been released seven years ago I admit, I'd have probably liked it a lot more then. Maybe I'm taking it too seriously. Maybe others are taking it too lightly.

One good thing: I liked the music.

EvilNed

20-Mar-2006, 05:29 PM

Thinking Big Daddy is supposed to represent Bin Laden is a simple case of trying to find connections that simply aren't there. No offense, but when you think you can spot a connection in the film that not even the director is aware off, then you're looking to much into things. :)

I see Big Daddy (His situation) more connects to the hurrican Katrina. But I read the Land script before that hurricane hit, so that can't be it.

Big Daddy is not supposed to be someone in particular. He's just a member of the oppressed lower class who is aware that he's being oppressed. While it may sound silly putting something like that into a zombie film, it's executed in more of a revenge kind of way. Big Daddy wants vengeance, not justice. And that makes more sense for a creature of his kind.

bassman

20-Mar-2006, 05:30 PM

Sorry, bassman...but the fact that the original Dawn is set in a Mall doesn't count as "social commentary", just like the fact that Saturday Night Fever is set in a disco doesn't make that "social commentary" either.

While the original script for Dawn was laced with social commentary, it had more to do with the SELFISHNESS of the "Me" Decade showcased by the main character, Steven, than it had to do with consumerism.

Unfortunately, most of that aspect was watered down in the final product, and the filmed version of the original Dawn is what it is--the ultimate horror film and second greatest zombie flick of all time.

And, the fact that Land is a throwback to the original script for Day is quite obvious--the concepts are pretty much identical. A super-powerful, rich class lords over the downtrodden masses, and a revolution takes place...replacing the old order with the new.

The consumerism isn't the only peice of commentary in the original "Dawn". Not to mention there is commentary in ALL of Romero's films. So even though any moron can catch it in "Land", it shouldn't seem like anything new....

As far as your description of the story to the original "Day" script.....sounds like pretty much ANY post-apocalyptic film to me :moon: ... But therre are major differences between that script and "Land".

Adrenochrome

20-Mar-2006, 05:32 PM

Big Daddy, AKA, the dead Bin Laden turned me off the film. Had it been released seven years ago I admit, I'd have probably liked it a lot more then. Maybe I'm taking it too seriously. Maybe others are taking it too lightly.

I think you need to re-watch the film. Big Daddy does NOT represent Bin Ladin. I can't even see where you'd dream that up. If I was to choose ANY character to represent Bin Ladin, it'd be Cholo. It seems to me you're just clawing at excuses to rip the flick.

Svengoolie

20-Mar-2006, 05:43 PM

The consumerism isn't the only peice of commentary in the original "Dawn". Not to mention there is commentary in ALL of Romero's films. So even though any moron can catch it in "Land", it shouldn't seem like anything new....

Maybe so...but what I'm saying is that this is that I believe that this is his first film where the commentary was meant to be the focus of the whole project, and not simply a part of it. While he had some things to say here and there in the other "Dead Films", I think they usually took a back seat to what the bread and butter of those films was--the ghouly, gory action.

Since you feel that I'm mistaken on all this, why don't you try to explain the social commentary behind the original Dawn to me, and please use concrete examples to back up your points.

As far as your description of the story to the original "Day" script.....sounds like pretty much ANY post-apocalyptic film to me ... But therre are major differences between that script and "Land".

I didn't say that Land was supposed to be identical to the original script for Day, I said that it was a THROWBACK to that original script--that the concepts, not the particulars, were identical.

Arcades057

20-Mar-2006, 05:43 PM

As I said, Adrenochrome, you have to think about the film as you watch it. There is no one else that BD could be. Think. Rewatch it.

The living (see also, the West) go to the dead city (see also, the Middle East) to "steal" supplies (see also, resources). The dead (see also, the terrorists) don't like it and they follow them back to the Green (see also, NY). Because of a corrupt leader, Kaufman (see also, GW Bush) the people within the city (see also, that generation of fools growing up without the USSR hanging over their heads) have forgotten that they are supposed to be scared of the dead. Because of that lack of fear, brought on by more entertainment, more vice (see also, more MTV, more news about how bad we are as a country) the dead are able to strike at the heart of the survivors (see also, NY).

To me it's rather simple. Trying to make Cholo represent Bin Laden is not so simple. There is one scene where the connection can almost be made, where Cholo talks about a Jihad, but that's one line of dialogue. Now can you see where I get my idea from?

If I remember correctly, didn't the script feature a group of people living in squalor on an island, led by a group of soldiers who lived in relative comfort on the same island, taking advantage of the less-fortunates?

Adrenochrome

20-Mar-2006, 05:46 PM

As I said, Adrenochrome, you have to think about the film as you watch it. There is no one else that BD could be. Think. Rewatch it.

The living (see also, the West) go to the dead city (see also, the Middle East) to "steal" supplies (see also, resources). The dead (see also, the terrorists) don't like it and they follow them back to the Green (see also, NY). Because of a corrupt leader, Kaufman (see also, GW Bush) the people within the city (see also, that generation of fools growing up without the USSR hanging over their heads) have forgotten that they are supposed to be scared of the dead. Because of that lack of fear, brought on by more entertainment, more vice (see also, more MTV, more news about how bad we are as a country) the dead are able to strike at the heart of the survivors (see also, NY).

To me it's rather simple. Trying to make Cholo represent Bin Laden is not so simple. There is one scene where the connection can almost be made, where Cholo talks about a Jihad, but that's one line of dialogue. Now can you see where I get my idea from?

No, I think the reason you hate this flick so much is because you WANT it to mean all that - you have alot of rage built up against the Taliban ( rightly so, I'd nuke them if I could) and are using this movie as an outlet to release all that hate. I just can't see Big Daddy representing Bin Ladin. I do agree with the Kaufman connection.

Arcades057

20-Mar-2006, 05:49 PM

OK, then you're still not seeing the connection. No problem, not many do. Besides everyone I've watched the film with, that it. May I suggest that you could possibly like the film enough that you do not want to see the connection?

Adrenochrome

20-Mar-2006, 05:55 PM

May I suggest that you could possibly like the film enough that you do not want to see the connection?
No, it wouldn't be that - I was actually looking for a blunt connection with that; just can't see it with Big Daddy. Not Bin Ladin.
I'd see it more like "we the people" against "Nut-Bush" before I could see the Bin Ladin thing. Seeing how most of America wants that wimpy bastard hoisted out of office. Cholo wanted to blow up Fiddlers Green (that's where I got his connection with Bin, not the Jihad comment) But, hey......at least we both got something out of it; even tho you hated it and I loved it, GAR at least got our attention.

Svengoolie

20-Mar-2006, 05:58 PM

I gotta go along with Arcades on this one. In the flick, there are a dozen points where Romero obviously compares the zombies to the Arab world. Here's just a couple:

1. In the beginning raid, the young trooper who gets eaten by the liquor store cop zombie says "I thought this was supposed to be a war..this is a slaughter." Which to me is a direct reference to Desert Storm.

2. When BD goes after Kaufmann at the end, he does so with a gas pump--which is supposed to be a symbol of how the oil we crave will ultimately be the downfall of the rich and powerful.

Arcades057

20-Mar-2006, 05:59 PM

:) Hate is too strong a word. I like the idea of another dead movie so it already has bonuses over other flicks. I just thought it could've been so much more, like if your kid scores a C in school. You're happy the little turd didn't fail, but you wish he'd gotten a B or an A.

Good to see we can actually debate instead of acting like children! :D

EvilNed

20-Mar-2006, 07:08 PM

I don't want to start a flame war, and I won't flame anyone. But Arcade, i think you're just trying to hard to fit Big Daddy with Bin Ladin and desperatly looking for connections. I could just as easily have compared Big Daddy with the greeks in the Antiquity. Just think about it:

Kaufman represent the greedy persians. They come and raid Greece time and time again. In the end, the greeks are fed up with this and set up with their own crusade of revenge (Alexander the Great) ending with the destruction of the Persian Empire (Fiddler's Green).

Infact, I think that's a much better explanation, but I know that Big Daddy was not supposed to represent Alexander the Great. He represents oppressed people everywhere. Bin Ladin is NOT oppressed, he is an oppressor (in his home country). Big Daddy was a gas station attendant, didn't force any rules on any of this fellow subjects and until the humans rolled into town he probably didn't give a crap about anything else than mindless wandering.

Kaufman does represent the upper class (and probably Dubya in particular). At least that's how I see it. Just like Dubya didn't care about hurrican Katrina, Kaufman doesn't really care about the people under him.

Svengoolie, I don't know if your post about the gas was supposed to be sarcastic or not. But if it was, it was pretty funny.

Arcades057

20-Mar-2006, 11:52 PM

EvilNed, GAR said the commentary was in regards to modern happenings, not ancient Greece. I know everyone on this board likes GAR, and I do too, but I also see the similarities between Big Daddy and Bin Laden. Because you do not see them does not mean they are not there.

Svengoolie

21-Mar-2006, 12:06 AM

I know what you mean, Arc--EvilNed's post DID come from waaay out in left field.

I thought GAR described that aspect of his own work as "social commentary that reflects the decade that the movie was made in" or something like that....:rolleyes:

Arcades057

21-Mar-2006, 12:38 AM

I see where he's coming from; strange enough it's coming from the exact same thing he's accusing me of. He loves the movie so much that he doesn't see the similarities.

Svengoolie

21-Mar-2006, 12:42 AM

Okay, it's a well known fact that the "social commentary" of GAR's films is supposed to reflect the time in which the films are produced.

So....

If the ghouls in Land aren't supposed to represent the Arab world, exactly what are they supposed to represent?

Please back up your argument with concrete points from the film.

Arcades057

21-Mar-2006, 12:57 AM

The zombies are supposed to represent the "lower class." This is supposed to show that the meek will inherit the Earth over the rich and well-off.

What he or anyone else who says that fails to see, is that the poor people in the film are supposed to represent the poor people in real life. You could even go so far as to say Cholo represents them as well. It's an easy answer to say the zombies are the poor; it's a little more difficult to actually come up with a reason how they do that.

glsjaw

21-Mar-2006, 02:19 AM

wasnt the script originally wrote before 911 happened, but not released till now because america wanted happy films?

Arcades057

21-Mar-2006, 07:30 AM

Yes, he also said he changed it, as far as I remember. Let us not forget the movie Sum of all Fears, which was based on a book of the same name by Tom Clancy. Due to political correctness Mr. Clancy was forced to change his villains from Muslim terrorists to that favorite evil of white America, Neo-Nazis.

Wouldn't it stand to reason that GAR would've changed the commentary a bit due to the fact that he could be construed, either intentionally or unintentionally, as supporting the terrorists?

Hmm, or maybe in this day and age knocking the terrorists in Hollywood is verboten, but making them look like the good guys is OK...? Especially if no one gets the fact that they are?

MinionZombie

21-Mar-2006, 10:48 AM

I don't remember GAR ever saying Big Daddy was supposed to be the zombie Bin Laden...:confused:

DjfunkmasterG

21-Mar-2006, 11:59 AM

Glad to see my thread has brought such intelligent discussion about this film, and has yet to start a flame war! I really applaud all of you for continuing a civil discussion for over 150+ replies.

Adrenochrome

21-Mar-2006, 02:25 PM

FLAME ON!!!!!!!!!
http://www.samruby.com/Heroes/HumanTorch/HT.gif

heh heh heh, sorry, I couldn't resist:D

Svengoolie

21-Mar-2006, 02:36 PM

I don't remember GAR ever saying Big Daddy was supposed to be the zombie Bin Laden...

That's because he hasn't...and wouldn't.

He rarely gets in-depth about the "social commentary" in his films, and usually prefers to let the audience interpret what they're seeing on their own, for the most part.

EvilNed

21-Mar-2006, 03:48 PM

Good point, Svengoolie. Eventhough Kaufman is obviously supposed to represent the american upper class, and the zombies the lower class, I doubt Big Daddy is supposed to represent Bin Laden. Maybe the people that US "oppress" (loosely used, but Kaufman was sure an oppressor) abroad, including the Arab world and various countries in South America, but not Bin Laden directly.

EDIT: Also, I was wondering what the similarities between Big Daddy and Bin Laden are. Apart from the fact that they oppose the big bad Kaufman/Dubya, there's really none... Or (I might be missing something)? I mean, Bin Laden hates all americans, but Big Daddy doesn't hate all humans. He just wants revenge for years of slaughter.

Svengoolie

21-Mar-2006, 04:08 PM

Personally, I don't see Big Daddy as a representation of Osama Bin Laden--I think he's supposed to represent the angst of the Arab World as a whole, and the particulars in the film support this.

A couple of examples:

1. In life, he worked as a gas station attendant.
2. When he decides to lead his fellow zombies against the humans, he travels west.
3. Towards the end, when he goes after Kaufman (and just how the heck he knew that Kaufman was supposed to be the main bad guy, I'd like to know) he goes after him with a gas pump.

To me, along with a lot of other points, it's fairly obvious that the ghouls are meant to represent the Arabs in this one....:cool:

axlish

21-Mar-2006, 04:15 PM

Big Daddy and the zombies represent the ****ed off Iraqi's who don't like unfamiliar soldiers (Riley and company) blowing up them and their houses.

Cholo represents Bin Laden. Cholo used to be on "our" side but Kauffman (who represents the US president, currently Bush) screws him over and this results in the "jihad".

Riley is the USA soldier who doesn't agree with what they are doing.

Charlie is the dumb soldier who is only there because he couldn't get a job at Burger King.

DjfunkmasterG

21-Mar-2006, 04:21 PM

This is starting to get good. :evil:

Iraqi or the common poor man no matter whom the zombies represent it does make for interesting debate. it still doesn't change the fact LOTD was mediocre.

bassman

21-Mar-2006, 04:21 PM

Adrenochrome

21-Mar-2006, 04:26 PM

It's really open to any kind of interpretation. Same as lyrics in music.

The artist makes his/her own interpretation of the work and it reflects what it is they say or what they want to get across.

The listener/viewer takes that art and interprets it to believe whatever they feel it is and makes it more personal.

You can take a song that is written about the artist losing his/her lover and interpret it as something totally different just as you can take certain things that Romero wanted to do with "Land" and interpret them into something totally different.

It all depends on the viewer/listener, their experiences in life, and what the art means to them.

That's my theory on it anyway.:shifty: I'm sure there are others that would agree.

OH, I couldn't have said it better myself. That's the one true beauty of art; the interpretation by every individual that veiws/listens to it. The key to this is, pay attention to what others have to say and don't be so closed minded about different interpretations. If someone believes that their "view" is the "only and correct" view, they miss out on alot (or all) of what the artist is trying to relay.

Svengoolie

21-Mar-2006, 04:27 PM

axlish

21-Mar-2006, 04:38 PM

This is starting to get good. :evil:

Iraqi or the common poor man no matter whom the zombies represent it does make for interesting debate. it still doesn't change the fact LOTD was mediocre.

My suggestion that the zombies represented the ****ed off Iraqi's was taken from a Romero quote, basically saying the same thing. The rest was my idea.

Yes, it was mediocre, but is aging better than I thought it would. It kills Day IMHO.

DjfunkmasterG

21-Mar-2006, 05:57 PM

My suggestion that the zombies represented the ****ed off Iraqi's was taken from a Romero quote, basically saying the same thing. The rest was my idea.

Yes, it was mediocre, but is aging better than I thought it would. It kills Day IMHO.

Land beating day? You're kidding right? Please say you're kidding! :confused:

axlish

21-Mar-2006, 06:00 PM

Land beating day? You're kidding right? Please say you're kidding! :confused:

I effing hate Day of the Dead, always have. It didn't take much for Land to trump it.

bassman

21-Mar-2006, 06:18 PM

No offense, bassman...but I always thought of that type of argument as a cop out. It's like saying "they just don't get it" or something.

If someone has a position, they should be able to prove it or defend it in a debate with points taken from the film, or book, or song...the same way we did in English class back in the day, when writing an essay or theme about a particular book.

No dude, I'm not saying that Romero left it open ended so that people could make up whatever they want. I'm saying that Romero did what HE thought with the film as far as the social commentary goes but each individual that watches the film can take what THEY think out of it.

And it's definitely not a cop out. That's why I related it to lyrics. As a musician and fan of music, I know that interpretation to the individual is what it is all about. It can mean something totally different to other people but relating music and art to experiences in one's own life is what makes it special.

So in other words, you CAN defend your opinion on it because it is YOUR opinion on the commentary of the film but there is no perfect answer. Everyone will translate it differently.

DjfunkmasterG

21-Mar-2006, 07:10 PM

I effing hate Day of the Dead, always have. It didn't take much for Land to trump it.

Wow, I am quite shocked dude. I didn't realize you loathed Day of the Dead that much.

Adrenochrome

21-Mar-2006, 07:17 PM

I effing hate Day of the Dead, always have. It didn't take much for Land to trump it.

oh wow! Day of the Dead is the BEST of the 4. IMO.

Svengoolie

21-Mar-2006, 08:25 PM

If you think about it, GAR's zombie average isn't really as good as most people give him credit for.

He's had two home runs (NOTLD '68 and Dawn), two base hits (NOTLD '90 and Day), and one strike-out with Land....:rolleyes:

bassman

21-Mar-2006, 08:49 PM

Tom Savini directed "Night90", not Romero. He did re-write it but I would say that Savini probably had the most say on the final product.

EvilNed

21-Mar-2006, 08:50 PM

He's had two home runs (NOTLD '68 and Dawn), two base hits (NOTLD '90 and Day), and one strike-out with Land....:rolleyes:

No. Why no? Because I don't agree, and thus that is only your opinion. :p

The original three were all home-runs in by book, Land is a good flick. NOTLD 90 is not his film, and it's not very good either. Just the editing, pacing is a bit bad. But to my knowledge, Tom Savini was never educated as a director.

Svengoolie

21-Mar-2006, 08:56 PM

While Tom Savini DID direct NOTLD '90, he did it from a screenplay written by GAR, and GAR had a lot more to do with that project than most fans knew about.

Check out this article here:

http://www.slasherama.com/features/savini.HTML

bassman

21-Mar-2006, 09:10 PM

umm...Did you read the article that's in the link you just provided?....

Slasherama: In 1990, your directorial remake of Night Of The Living Dead hit shelves. I understand it wasn't the finest of experiences for you…
Savini: "That was the worst experience of my life! George wasn't there. It would have been a blast if George were there. We would've had fun and hashed things out like we always do. He would have been on my side and been supportive. But he had to go to Florida to write The Dark Half and I was stuck with these two idiots, who will remain nameless.

And it goes on to say that many things were changed by certain people and ended up souring Romero and Savini's relationship until later when Romero realized that the other people who had their hands on the film were screwing him over and lying to him...

DjfunkmasterG

21-Mar-2006, 09:55 PM

The article also says people were calling George at home and telling him different things, and he was contacting Savini and getting mad at him. Very convienent that you left that out.

bassman

21-Mar-2006, 10:00 PM

Did I?....

Romero realized that the other people who had their hands on the film were screwing him over and lying to him...

Same thing....just worded differently. Doesn't seem very convienent to me.....

Shoo....back to your home movies:moon: ....

EvilNed

21-Mar-2006, 10:18 PM

According to Savini, George haded Savini the script and said "Here, it's your film from now on.".

DjfunkmasterG

21-Mar-2006, 10:24 PM

Shoo....back to your home movies:moon: ....

You're right... back to my home movie. Anything is better than LOTD! :evil:

axlish

21-Mar-2006, 10:30 PM

I hate Night 90 too, with a passion. :mad:

Gee, wonder who the two idiots Savini is talking about are?

Svengoolie

21-Mar-2006, 10:35 PM

Ummm, bassman--did you read what I posted, OR the article in it's entirety?

I said in the post that GAR had a lot more to do with that project than most fans knew about. Not that he directed the project, or was the main force behind it. That he'd had alot more to do with the project than most fans knew about.

In the article itself, it says:

When George saw it, he said, 'You've got an eight-week movie on the wall and you only have six weeks to do it. So even he started cutting stuff. He cut the whole bit with Tom catching on fire at the gas pump, before we started shooting.

Not many writers have that kind of pull when it comes to dealing with the guys directing their screenplays, you know?

DjfunkmasterG

21-Mar-2006, 11:57 PM

I hate Night 90 too, with a passion. :mad:

Gee, wonder who the two idiots Savini is talking about are?

I assume one of them has to be John Russo and I assume the other being Menahem Golan.

bassman

22-Mar-2006, 01:19 AM

Ummm, bassman--did you read what I posted, OR the article in it's entirety?

I said in the post that GAR had a lot more to do with that project than most fans knew about. Not that he directed the project, or was the main force behind it. That he'd had alot more to do with the project than most fans knew about.

In the article itself, it says:

Not many writers have that kind of pull when it comes to dealing with the guys directing their screenplays, you know?

And it also says that he had hardly anything to do with it during production. Believe what you want to believe but I'm telling you(any fan can tell you), it's a Savini film...not Romero.

Svengoolie

22-Mar-2006, 01:27 AM

I never said it wasn't a Savini film--all I said was that GAR had alot more to do with that film than most fans knew about.

He wrote the screenplay, and from the looks of that article he coached Savini through the pre-production, and kept tabs on him throughout the actual filming of the project--so that tells me that one way or the other, he was pretty well involved in that project.

But, have it your way--

That makes his average two home runs, a single, and a strike-out in the zombie department.:D

Harold W Brown

22-Mar-2006, 04:02 AM

"When I get effects jobs these days, I turn them over to my students at my school."

That actually hurt to read.

EvilNed

22-Mar-2006, 02:47 PM

That makes his average two home runs, a single, and a strike-out in the zombie department.:D

Three home-runs and a single if I may. ;)

But I agree you can't really count NOTLD90, even if Romero had some influence on it. Savini was the director, and in a way he even brought his own crew along.

According to various other people (Tor Ramsey, the director of COTLD) John A. Russo was not really a big asshole, he was just a complete moron when it came to films and how they were made.

bassman

22-Mar-2006, 02:58 PM

Three home-runs and a single if I may. ;)

But I agree you can't really count NOTLD90, even if Romero had some influence on it. Savini was the director, and in a way he even brought his own crew along.

According to various other people (Tor Ramsey, the director of COTLD) John A. Russo was not really a big asshole, he was just a complete moron when it came to films and how they were made.

Exactly...

That's what I've been trying to say this whole time....

axlish

22-Mar-2006, 03:24 PM

I assume one of them has to be John Russo and I assume the other being Menahem Golan.

One is definitely John Russo. I figured the other was Russ Streiner, but if Bill Hinzman was there, it was probably him. Either way, Russo's stink was all over that flick. It felt more like an episode of Tales from the Darkside than a horror classic. The synth soundtrack didn't help.

EvilNed

22-Mar-2006, 07:03 PM

One is definitely John Russo. I figured the other was Russ Streiner, but if Bill Hinzman was there, it was probably him. Either way, Russo's stink was all over that flick. It felt more like an episode of Tales from the Darkside than a horror classic. The synth soundtrack didn't help.

Augh, I hated the soundtrack! Everytime I watch the film, there's alot of places where I just think "This scene would have been much better without music". For instance when Barbara is running to the farmhouse.

Arcades057

22-Mar-2006, 07:56 PM

I like the music from the opening scene with the moon rising. Very eerie, it's always given me the jumpin-jesuses.

axlish

23-Mar-2006, 06:38 PM

I like the music from the opening scene with the moon rising. Very eerie, it's always given me the jumpin-jesuses.

I'll give you that. That 10 second clip of music while the moon rises, and the hip hop beat over the credits are cool :clown:

Svengoolie

23-Mar-2006, 06:46 PM

I liked the fact that, the second time around, a little more effort was put into character development. But, it was so little that the credit there might lie more with the costume designer, and the actors themselves, than with GAR's screenwriting ability.

Trioxin245

28-Mar-2006, 02:55 PM

First time seeing it, I was an hyped up son of a bitch expecting once more an rave of zombie enjoyment by ol' GAR. But till the end of it, I wasn't too impressed by LOTD. While Dennis Hopper and John Leguizamo are priceless actors, they just weren't enough to statisfy anything by any level. Several plotholes aswell not to ruin the film but to keep me bothered through it. Overall half of it was an disappointment, as for the other half? I assume it was nice to once more experience the Zombie genre of GAR.

Arcades057

28-Mar-2006, 04:24 PM

I still like the '90 version better than the original. I think it's the makeup, or the '90's version of the characters.

Svengoolie

28-Mar-2006, 04:35 PM

Even Savini's disaster was better than GAR's "masterpiece"....:confused:

axlish

28-Mar-2006, 04:56 PM

Even Savini's disaster was better than GAR's "masterpiece"....:confused:

While they both had major flaws, I'd have to say that Land was more fun, and thus more watchable.

Svengoolie

28-Mar-2006, 05:01 PM

I dunno, axlish....that's like saying a kick to the balls is better than a jag in the eye!:D

bassman

28-Mar-2006, 05:04 PM

I agree with Axlish on this one....."Land" is definitely more fun than "Night 90". Although both are a fun time, I think "Land" takes the taco. "Night90" seems a bit slow in some places.

Poor Savini....He could've given us a GREAT dead film but had to settle for less because of those involved...

axlish

28-Mar-2006, 05:10 PM

When Barbara says "They're so slow" I want to throw something at the screen. Why de-fang the threat?

Svengoolie

28-Mar-2006, 05:15 PM

Well, bassman....it was Savini's name that was on that project--so the blame falls on him.

As for axlish...one thing I noticed about NOTLD 90's ghouls is that they were even slower, and less threatening, than any of the ghouls featured in the original trilogy.

bassman

28-Mar-2006, 05:34 PM

Svengoolie

28-Mar-2006, 06:07 PM

We've been through this before, kid.

Enough said.

Uncalled for.

Now...you've gotta accept reality and realize that it cuts both ways--you can't have the good without the bad. You can't praise the good stuff but constantly blame the mistakes on someone else--the world doesn't work that way.

bassman

28-Mar-2006, 06:08 PM

Uncalled for?......Riiight...

Am I missing something?...

Svengoolie

28-Mar-2006, 06:10 PM

Apparently you are.

The bottom line is--when all is said and done it was Savini's baby, and the buck ultimately stops there.

bassman

28-Mar-2006, 06:13 PM

Okay, dude. It's a difference in opinions....just like I said the first go-round of this debate. I believe Savini had to make do with what he could, you believe it's his fault.

Time to move on, sweetheart...

Svengoolie

28-Mar-2006, 06:18 PM

Time to move on, sweetheart...

See...now that was uncalled for as well.

Instead of just stating your opinion, you had to make yet another attempt to lure me into an argument.

We can have a difference in opinion without resorting to cheap shots like that.

Follow your own advice, and just move on.

Harold W Brown

28-Mar-2006, 06:20 PM

Uncalled for.

Now...you've gotta accept reality and realize that it cuts both ways--you can't have the good without the bad. You can't praise the good stuff but constantly blame the mistakes on someone else--the world doesn't work that way.

Most critics of "Superman II" would disagree.

MANY films have traces of brilliance that shine through studio interference, recutting, and other bad ideas that didn't involve the writer or director.

Trioxin245

28-Mar-2006, 06:22 PM

I prefer the 90's version, everything in it is just more colorful :D

Svengoolie

28-Mar-2006, 06:24 PM

Most critics of "Superman II" would disagree.

MANY films have traces of brilliance that shine through studio interference, recutting, and other bad ideas that didn't involve the writer or director.

Very well.

Explain exactly how that would apply to NOTLD '90, and please give specific examples as to how Savini's "brilliance" was compromised by other parties.:D

bassman

28-Mar-2006, 06:29 PM

Yeah...."Superman 2" is THE example of a studio butting in. Donner should've been able to finish it. Then there would actually be 2 whole movies in the franchise that are good!:p

Instead of just stating your opinion, you had to make yet another attempt to lure me into an argument.

I wasn't doing that at all. Don't flatter yourself there, chief.

Don't take stuff so personally around here. You'll find that it works best that way:D

Peace.

Svengoolie

28-Mar-2006, 06:32 PM

I wasn't doing that at all. Don't flatter yourself there, chief.

Don't take stuff so personally around here. You'll find that it works best that way

Peace.

Whatever you say, there...pal.

And, although it's off-topic...I'd take Superman IV: The Quest for Peace over Land any old day of the week!:D

Harold W Brown

28-Mar-2006, 06:34 PM

Very well.

Explain exactly how that would apply to NOTLD '90, and please give specific examples as to how Savini's "brilliance" was compromised by other parties.:D

No.

The point was that you think (or stated, anyway) that all good and all bad within a film are the fault of one person. That is probably true of a backyard camcorder epic, but that is not true of a $4 million dollar exploitation film with numerous investors, a film where the director doesn't have final cut.

People who had final say over Savini include:

Menahem Golan
Russell Streiner
The MPAA

Had he had final cut, his effort still may not have been any masterpiece. But that's a lot of thumbprints to ignore and say "the buck stops with him".

"Brilliance" is subjective and a sloppy choice of words on my part. But to be literal, I said "many films", not Savini's. Some films that had bits of brilliance despite being re-cut by the studio include:

Magnificent Ambersons
Touch of Evil
All the Star Wars Special Editions (recut by the executive producer, yet still not improved)

Whatever you say, there...pal.

And, although it's off-topic...I'd take Superman IV: The Quest for Peace over Land any old day of the week!:D

Are you mad at that ****ing film or what? I've never seen so much time devoted to hating on a film...:lol:

Wait, yes I have. You and DJFunk are neck and neck...:D

Tullaryx

28-Mar-2006, 06:47 PM

Whatever you say, there...pal.

And, although it's off-topic...I'd take Superman IV: The Quest for Peace over Land any old day of the week!:D

Man, that's harsh! But then Quest for Peace did have Nuclear Man....or was he called Radioactive Man?

DjfunkmasterG

28-Mar-2006, 07:04 PM

I prefer the 90's version, everything in it is just more colorful :D

Agreed... Funny, but I agree. I love NOTLD 68 and I like 1990. However after sometime I started to like the remake more. I think Tony todd and the rest of the cast aside from the guy who played Tom and the chick who played Judy Rose.... were fantastic.

Harold W Brown

28-Mar-2006, 07:06 PM

*Deleted by axlish. Forward the PM to andy or Neil if you have a beef.

Tullaryx

28-Mar-2006, 07:07 PM

Agreed... Funny, but I agree. I love NOTLD 68 and I like 1990. However after sometime I started to like the remake more. I think Tony todd and the rest of the cast aside from the guy who played Tom and the chick who played Judy Rose.... were fantastic.

Whoever played the young couple...hmmm, I was glad they got barbecued. I didn't have the same reaction to the demise of the original Tom and Judy. I liked and enjoyed the remake of NOTLD, but I just like that black and white, documentary feel and the soundtrack for the original. I still get creeped out watching the original.

DjfunkmasterG

28-Mar-2006, 07:11 PM

deleted by axlish

Svengoolie

28-Mar-2006, 07:23 PM

Trioxin245

28-Mar-2006, 07:31 PM

I didn't care much for Judy in neither both versions, in the orignal she was an bland teen as you said, in the remake all she did was scream and scream. I was glad Tom died, for the ROTLD 4 & 5 crap he wrote :lol:

Harold W Brown

28-Mar-2006, 07:44 PM

deleted by axlish

DjfunkmasterG

28-Mar-2006, 07:48 PM

When I mentioned how the character development was stronger in the NOTLD remake, I was actually thinking (at first) OF Tom and Judy.

In the original, they were just generic...downright bland teens; while in the remake, they were rednecks.

When it first came out I was 16...and appreciated it for its differences from the original--which, in B&W, might as well have been made by Fred Flintstone to me at that time.

Now, I LOVE the original NOTLD for what it is...and I actually love it all the more when it's shown on inferior stock--I honestly think that adds all the more to its charm!:D

I was thinking the same thing... I came across my old NOTLD VHS and I popped it in and the original is so muich creepier on that crappy stock as opposed to the Hi-quality digital remastering. Don't get wrong I love my millenium edition DVD, but I like seeing NOTLD68 with all the pops, hisses and grain it had since day one.

axlish

28-Mar-2006, 07:53 PM

I was thinking the same thing... I came across my old NOTLD VHS and I popped it in and the original is so muich creepier on that crappy stock as opposed to the Hi-quality digital remastering. Don't get wrong I love my millenium edition DVD, but I like seeing NOTLD68 with all the pops, hisses and grain it had since day one.

That is the way I came to know and love the film. I can appreciate the hell out of a nasty print of notld68. The Laugh Track DVD includes a god awful print.

Harold W Brown

28-Mar-2006, 07:57 PM

That is the way I came to know and love the film. I can appreciate the hell out of a nasty print of notld68. The Laugh Track DVD includes a god awful print.

I felt that way about Dawn for a long time. The cleaned up prints have grown on me, though.

DjfunkmasterG

28-Mar-2006, 07:58 PM

I am, I'm just not petty enough. I apologized in another thread. I'll apologize here to the board members who wasted their time reading this exchange. I think you took it further than it needed to be, but I'm over it. Truce? I am still very interested in hearing the reasons you've taken Land's shortcomings so personally.

I take it more personal because of people that slammed the DAWN remake which was a much better film than LOTD. I also take it personal because after spending an entire night on set in November 2004 and listening to people in the know on LOTD I expected a quality flick based on a script I read in August 2004. Instead what I got was some hollywood polished turd, that never delivered on all those great Romero moments that I have come accustomed too in the past.

We had cardboard characters, horrible zombie acting (Big daddy) a cookie cutter plot, and some of the worst lighting and editing I have ever seen. Romero was so much better when he was under the radar... his one time to go big and what do we get... some rushed POS that should have been on the Troma label.

The single biggest annoying part of LOTD was big daddy and slack. Not too mention Riley's bull**** about "they're just looking for a place to go" What kind of crap is that? They had a place until you guys went in and ****ed them off, but no.... after they slaughter a few hundred residents of the city they just let them walk off... Forget that. Where's Capt. Rhodes when ya need him most?

Romero's liberal political view convoluted an entire film. I am a liberal and even I cringed at how bad he took the liberal point of view into this film. Here he is trying to mock the Bush administration, but at the same time brings out the single thing that makes Liberals so hated.

He needs to keep his social commentaries more subtle and not so in your face. That is another major flaw of LOTD.:D

bassman

28-Mar-2006, 08:00 PM

That is the way I came to know and love the film. I can appreciate the hell out of a nasty print of notld68. The Laugh Track DVD includes a god awful print.

Are you refering to the version of "Night" with Mike Nelson(from MST3k) commentary? If so....how is that? I've been meaning to pick it up but haven't gotten around to it.

Trioxin245

28-Mar-2006, 08:02 PM

Where's Capt. Rhodes when ya need him most?

You mean LOTD is not food enough for yah?! ;)

Svengoolie

28-Mar-2006, 08:03 PM

Regardless, Trioxin...no matter what GAR ever comes up with, he'll NEVER be able to top the original ROTLD!:D

DjfunkmasterG

28-Mar-2006, 08:04 PM

That is the way I came to know and love the film. I can appreciate the hell out of a nasty print of notld68. The Laugh Track DVD includes a god awful print.

I only watched the Goofy version once... But I thought it was funny as hell. However seeing that crappy version brought back tons of Memories.

My fave part of the laugh version is when The Tire Iron zombie comes walking in from outside about to get Barbara. Even though we know it is outside it looks like he came out of the closet and here you have someone dubbing over the top... "I'm Not a F A G!" I laughed my goddamned ass off when I heard that. That was pure comic genius at an unexpected moment in the film.

You mean LOTD is not food enough for yah?! ;)

Nope...

:D Nice reference.

Trioxin245

28-Mar-2006, 08:09 PM

Regardless, Trioxin...no matter what GAR ever comes up with, he'll NEVER be able to top the original ROTLD!:D

True words never been spoken crusader. And thats why you gotta let me eat your BRRAAIINSS!! :D

Svengoolie

28-Mar-2006, 08:20 PM

Watch your tongue, boy...if you like this job!:D

Trioxin245

28-Mar-2006, 08:24 PM

Like this job?! ;)

Arcades057

29-Mar-2006, 01:59 AM

This has been a really good discussion so far, everyone, let's try to keep it that way! It would suck to have this thread locked.

After watching all of the dead films again over the past week I've decided my list of favorites goes like this:

1) Dawn '78 (only the special edition with all the deleted scenes)
2) Night '90
3) Day
4) Dawn '04
5) Land

Now I'm not going to say "it's grown on me" or "it's really not as bad as I thought" becuase it hasn't, and it is. What I am going to say is it could've been worse. If Slack had been played by, say, Hillary Duff it would be worse. If Riley had been played by Carrot top or any rapper, it would've been worse. If Cholo had been played by Fat Joe, it would've been worse. If Big Daddy had been an emoting zombie that screamed "Nooooo!" or a zombie that walked around like a human it would've been... oh wait...

So yeah, a few things changed could've made the movie better.

Svengoolie

29-Mar-2006, 02:23 AM

Hey! You forgot the original NOTLD!:D

Arcades057

29-Mar-2006, 04:39 AM

I did that on purpose, Sven. I'm not too fond of that movie. The only black and white movie I like is The Longest Day.

AcesandEights

29-Mar-2006, 05:16 AM

The only black and white movie I like is The Longest Day.

Good film. It's nice to hear someone bring it up. I think you're the only other person under 50 years of age I've ever seen reference it.

Tullaryx

29-Mar-2006, 05:39 AM

Well, its a film that usually doesn't get mentioned in a board about zombies and all things related. :lol:

AcesandEights

31-Mar-2006, 12:38 AM

Well, its a film that usually doesn't get mentioned in a board about zombies and all things related. :lol:

:bored: Riiiiiight. I was speaking generally, and not specifically about traffic on these boards, but then, you knew that already :p

DjfunkmasterG

10-Apr-2006, 10:13 PM

THis thread is still going?

228 posts and over 2,000 views. I am impressed.

Svengoolie

10-Apr-2006, 11:30 PM

What's interesting is:

By comparison, the "why people like Land of the Dead" thread got only 25 replies and 327 views...and this one got 229 responses and 2017 views!:eek: :D

MinionZombie

11-Apr-2006, 11:01 AM

It's the thread that won't die, even if you put a bullet in it's head :p

DjfunkmasterG

11-Apr-2006, 12:46 PM

This is the Return of the Living Dead type zombie of message board threads.

Guido

25-Apr-2006, 03:13 AM

i skimmed through here and there in this thread, and from someone who's a relatively young dead series fan...

What i really liked about seeing the original 3 was that they weren't like other action/horror movies. The characters had depth, when Ben died in the original, I was ****ed. When bub was sad at finding dr. frankenstien's dead body, i felt something.

In land, i just didn't care about the humans. I kinda felt bad when the poor people living on the streets got munched, but as for the main characters, as many said, they were cookie cutter characters. nothing new, nothing innovatitive and not up to par with gar's other creations.

Also, I (along with everyone here, i'm sure) had been looking forward to Land for a long time. with such high expectations from a small group of fans, how could the movie truly live up to expectations?

EDIT: And the title of the thread, about why we HATE LotD...despite several shortcomings, i still liked it. didn't love it, didn't hate it either. Honestly, out of everyone that had a couple negative comments on LotD, do you really HATE it? just curious.

Arcades057

25-Apr-2006, 05:33 AM

I have to say, Guido, that when I first saw it I hated it. After consecutive viewings I'm more inclined to enjoy it now, but I still think it's the weakest of the 4.

DjfunkmasterG

25-Apr-2006, 12:03 PM

Still hate it. :D

Guido

25-Apr-2006, 03:11 PM

fair enough, haha....and i agree, it is the weakest of the quadrilogy.

DjfunkmasterG

26-Apr-2006, 02:28 PM

Weak is too nice a word for LOTD. The film is beyond weak. However, until I come up with a better word... weak will have to do! :D

soulsyfn

27-Apr-2006, 07:56 PM

Not to spew forth with the same sentiments about Land but... It was the dropping you right into the middle of an existing society of living that really messed with me.

In Night you had the main character - unaware of the impending doom - living her life in the world of the living by doing something that everyone does (yeah, I know going to a grave yard is not something that everyone does as often as she was said to have done in the movie but its something tangible that everyone can accept).

In Dawn (original) you had a swat team going into a building trying to save lives and then the developing of a new society holed up in a Mall for safety and food while trying to fend off looters and the dead. Another tangible feeling driven story.

Day (not one of my faves stuck to the same type of formula that Land was developed on) started with the dead already being established and the survivors/living trying to move on with their lives but not succeeding due to greed.

So the reason "I" hated Land was the simple lack of building up an interest in the characters and the completely unbelievable dialogue and interaction between the characters.

As an example Cholo taking dead reckoning and threatening to destroy the Green was rediculous. His character was supposed to be a hardened "I dont give a ****" guy that had many opportunities to kill kaufman and move on with his life. Instead he ran with his tail between his legs and bitched about money... money that would mean nothing to anyone that was living in the rest of the world. It was just rediculous - He had dead reckoning, he could have taken all the food and water they needed to survive and just go make a new life for him and his team. And kaufman and his Greenies would have been **** out of luck.

The movie had too many characters and too many "who cares about them" characters. I say more plot, less but more refined/believeable character's, and more zombie interaction with the living is what was needed... GAR lost his footing with this movie. I hope he is given the chance to work on another project.

:mad:

DjfunkmasterG

27-Apr-2006, 10:43 PM

Griff

28-Apr-2006, 12:35 AM

As an example Cholo taking dead reckoning and threatening to destroy the Green was rediculous. His character was supposed to be a hardened "I dont give a ****" guy that had many opportunities to kill kaufman and move on with his life. Instead he ran with his tail between his legs and bitched about money... money that would mean nothing to anyone that was living in the rest of the world. It was just rediculous - He had dead reckoning, he could have taken all the food and water they needed to survive and just go make a new life for him and his team. And kaufman and his Greenies would have been **** out of luck.

What? You mean like Riley chose to do? Listen, there's reasons why Cholo was written that way.

Metaphorically, he represents the disenfranchised factions who have done the U.S.A.'s dirty work for them, only to have the rope cut from them when the job is done. You can take your pick but the Taliban is probably a good example. Now they've turned the very guns they were provided with onto the U.S.A...

Thematically, he makes an excellent contrast to the Riley character. Cholo wants to buy into the false security, the new 'American Dream', that Kaufman provides ...and Riley wants out. He sees it for what it is: manipulation and control. He also understands that the power of money is an illusion and makes no demands for it when making that deal with Kaufman. All he wants are wheels - a means to follow his own path - and freedom for his friends.